*•  ♦ 


AN 


ABHRI2SS 


TO 


THE  PEOPLE  OF  ALABAMA, 

BY  W.  L.  YANCEY, 

.^ri&    A    DKLEGATJE,    AT    LARGE,    FOR    THE    STATE    OP    ALABA'IA, 

TO  THE 

N4tTW>*TAI.  DEMOCRATIC  CONVENTION, 

Jl  l/'uriore,  on  22d  Mat/,  A.  D.  1848. 


MONTGOMERY: 


'RJNT  EC  AT  THE  IXA3-  AND  ADVERTISER  JOB  0T2WS, 


1848. 


/( 


a 

r-p  ■ 


ADDRESS. 


Fellow  Citizens: 

On  the  14th  day  of  February  last,  the  State  Convention  of  the 
Democratic  party  of  Alabama,  unanimously  appointed  me,  to 
be  a  delegate  for  the  State  at  large  to  the  National  Democra- 
tic Convention,  which  was  called  to  assemble  at  Baltimore,  on 
the  22d  day  of  May,  1S4S.  I  attended  that  Convention,  and 
made,  according  to  the  best  of  my  judgment  and  ability,  a 
strenuous  effort  to  secure  to  the  South,  both  in  the  nomina- 
tion and  in  the  assertion  of  the  principles  Of  the  party,  guaran- 
tees that  our  rights  should  be  respected  in  the  new  adminis- 
tration, which  the  labors  of  that  body  were  designed  to  place 
in  power.  Unsuccessful,  on  both  points,  and  referring  the 
Convention  to  the  rigid  and  inflexible  instructions  under  which 
I  was  sent  to  that  body  as  a  delegate,  I  refused  to  pledge  the 
constituency,  whose  agent  I  was,  to  the  support  of  the  nomi- 
nee; or  to  an  approval  of  the  principles  put  forth  as  the 
Democratic  platform. 

Acting  as  a  citizen  of  Alabama,  after  the  adjournment  of 
the  Baltimore  Convention,  and  under  the  solemn  pledge  made- 
to  me  by  the  members  of  the  State  Convention,  and  by  me, 
as  a  member  of  that  body,  to  my  brother  members  and  "to 
the  country;"  I  have  refused,  "under  any  political  necessity 
Whatever,"  to  support  the  Baltimore  nominee  for  the  Presi- 
dency, as  long  as  he  confines  himself  to  his  present  position 
upon  the  rights  of  the  South — a  position  which  the  State 
Convention  of  February  last  pronounced  to  be  "alike  in  vio- 
lation of  the  Constitution,  and  of  the  just  and  equal  rights  of 
the  citizens  of  the  slave-holding  States." 

Since  I  have  returned  to  the  State,  I  have  felt  it  to  be-a 
dul}  which  I  owe  to  the  democracy  who  had  delegated  me 
to  speak  ite  voice  in  the  Baltimore  Convention,  to  speak  freely 
and  without  reserve  of  the  proceedings  in  that  body,  and  to 
call  upon  the  democracy  to  stand  firmly  to  that  pledge  mads 


' 


4 

* 
"to  the  country,"  as  well  as  to  its  delegates,  by  its  regularly 
authorised  representatives  in  the  State  Convention  of  Febru- 
ary last. 

That  call  has  been  answered  *by  the  great  majority  of  the 
democratic  press  with  such  a  torrent  of  contumely — of  per- 
sonal abuse — of  vindictiveness:  has  been  replied  to  in  ratifi- 
cation meetings  by  resolutions  of  personal  condemnation,  and 
by  speakers  in  such  strains  of  bitterness  and  misrepresenta- 
tion: that,  were  I  n#t  sustained  by  a  perfect  consciousness  of 
being  right — by  a  knowledge  of  my  duty,  and  by  a  courage  "to 
dare  do  no  wrong"  in  this  great  matter — I  should  have  yearn- 
ed for  that  obscurity  which  is  a  protection  from  such  assaults, 
and  should  have  sought  for  peace  by  yielding  the  principles 
upon  which  I  have  acted,  as  a  sacrifice  to  the  angry  passions 
of  my  assailants 

A  portion  of  my  co-delegates  have  also  joined  in  the  "hue 
and  cry"  which  has  been  raised  to  hunt  down  "the  rebel" — 
to  drive  "the  traitor"  to  his  doom  Their  statements,  too, 
exhibit  the  spirit  of  the  crowd  which  they  were  designed  to 
please.  Their  suppression  in  part  of  truth  has  given  a  false  col- 
oring to  facts;  while,  in  the  instance  of  one  delegate,  that  the 
democracy  had  chosen,  as  it  vainly  deemed,  fit  to  represent 
its  moral  as  well  as  political  character,  this  petty  feeling  has 
exhibited  itself  in  circulating  a  miserable  caricature  of  my 
personal  appearance. 

These  misrepresentations  have  force  given  to  them  by  the 
studied  attempt  of  the  democratic  press,  with  one  or  two  hon- 
orable exceptions,  to  keep  from  the  public  even  an  account 
of  my  official  acts  as  a  delegate ;  while  a  portion  of  it,  not  sa- 
tisfied with  leaving  me  defenceless  before  the  public,  has  as- 
sailed me  with  such  gross  misrepresentations  as  would  need 
no  other  refutation  than  a  simple  statement  of  facts. 

One  of  those  honorable  exceptions  alluded  to,  thinking  that 
bare  justice,  a,t  least,  was  demanded  at  its  hands,  ventured  to 
publish  the  speech  made  by  me  in  explanation  of  my  minority 
report  in  the  Convention  ;  and  so  rank  is  the  spirit  of  injustice 
prevalent  in  the  press  at  this  time,  that  the  editor  is  deliberate- 
ly taken  to  task  for  doing  so  by  one  of  his  cotemporaries,  and 
is  gravely  pronounced  to  "have  a  strange  conception  ofvwhat 
constitutes  justice." 

Three  of  my  colleagues  in  the  late  Convention  have  pub- 
lished addresses  to  the  people  of  the  State,  not  so  much  in 
vindication  of  themselves  as  apparently  still  farther  to  misre- 


present  me ;  for  by  no  other  construction  can  I  explain  the 
studied  suppression  by  ah"  of  important  facts  within  their 
knowledge,  and  the  statement  by  some  of  matters  in  connec- 
tion with  myself  which  first  found  existence  in  their  own 
fertile  brains.  Those  addresses  have  been  extensively  cir- 
culated: dare  I  expect  that  a  sense  of  ordinary  justice  will 
induce  the  democratic  press  to  give  my  reply  to  these  mis- 
statements, a  place  in  their  columns? 

From  an  ungenerous,  unjust  and  abusive  press — from  the 
mass  of  ill-informed  speakers  at  ratification  and  cross  road 
meetings — from  the  wretchedly  contemptible  effusions  of  let- 
ter writers  and  anonymous  correspondents  — and  from  the 
misrepresentations  of  that  portion  of  ihe  delegation  to  the  late 
Baltimore  Convention,  which  has  pretended  to  inform  the 
public  of  the  doings  at  Baltimore,  and  which  has  given  but 
partial  statements  of  those  proceedings — I  appeal  to  the  peo- 
ple of  Alabama;  asking  of  that  portion  of  them,  which  is 
styled  the  democracy,  to  give  me  a  hearing  as  one  of  their 
delegates  to  the  late  National  Baltimore  Convention:  asking 
of  all,  without  distinction  of  party,  to  hear  me  as  a  citizen,  alike 
interested  with  them  in  the  weal  or  woe  of  our  common  coun- 
try; and  to  hear  me  in  the  spirit  demanded  by  the  stern  Ro- 
man patriot — "for  my  cause" — inasmuch  as  I  have  nothing 
to  ask,  nor  to  expect,  for  myself.  ' 

As  necessary  to  a  complete  understanding  of  the  question, 
I  will  first  call  attention  to  a  brief  history  of. the  Wilmot 
Proviso. 

On  the  8th  of  August,  1846,  the  two  million  bill  being  un- 
der consideration,  Mr  Wilmot  moved  the  following  amend- 
ment: 

"Provided,  That  as  an  express  and  fundamental  condition  of  the  acqui- 
sition of  any  territory  from  the  Republic  of  Mexico  by  the  United  States, 
by  virtue  of  any  treaty  which  may  be  negotiated  between  them,  and  to 
the  uses  by  the  Executive  of  the  moneys  herein  appropriated,  neither 
slavery,  nor  involuntary  servitude,  shall  ever  exist  in  any  part  of  said  ter- 
ritories, except  for  crime,  whereof  the  party  shall  first  be  duly  convicted."' 

This prov iso  amendment  was  adopted  by  a  vote  of  83  yeas 
to  64  nays.  And  the  bill,  as  amended,  was  passed  by  a  vote 
of  85  yeas  to  79  nays.— (See  Cong.  Globe,  pp.  1217,  1218, 
15/  sess.  29 th  Congress.) 

In  that  Congress  there  was  a  democratic  majority  of  about 
fifty  votes,  and  a  majority  of  democratic  members  of  Congress 
from  the  North  voted  for  that  proviso. 


The  bill  went  to  'he  Senate,  and  came  up  for  consideration 
on  the  10th  of  August.  Mr  Lewis  moved  to  strike  out  this 
proviso.  Mr.  Davjs  of  Mass.  obtained  the  floor,  and  spoke 
until  the  hour  of  12  had  arrived,  and  it  being  the  hour  agreed 
upon  for  the  adjournment  of  the  Senate,  sine  die,  that  body 
adjourned,  without  taking  a  vote  on  the  bill. — (See  Cong. 
Globe,  1st  sess   29th  Cong  pp.  1220,  1221. ) 

3\|r.  Rathbun  of  New  York  was  a  member  of  that  Congress. 
In  the  Utica  Convention,  held  February  16,  184S,  he  gave  to 
the  public  this  piece  of  the  onwritten  history  of  the  opinions 
of  all  the  Northern  Democratic  Senators  on  that  proviso,  on 
that  day.  "Mr.  President  I  know  very  well  the  views  and 
feelings  of  that  Senator  (Gen  Cass)  in  the  month  of  August, 
1846.  I  learned  them  from  his  own  lips.  On  the  day  that 
Congress  adjourned,  and  at  the  time  that  Senator  Davis  of 
Mass  spoke  up  to  the  adjournment  of  the  Senate,  on  the  VVil- 
mot  proviso,  I  met  the  Senator  at  the  railroad  depot  in  Wash- 
ington, and  rode  near  to  him,  and  conversed  freely  with  him 
between  that  place  and  Baltimore.  The  Senator  appeared 
somewhat  excited,  and  spoke  freely  and  with  a  good  deal  of 
energy  on  the  subject  of  the  "proviso."  He  stated  to  me, 
that  every  Northern  Democratic  Senator  had  agreed  to  vote 
for  it  He  said,  repeatedly,  that  'he  regretted  very  much  that 
he  could  not  have  recorded  his  vote  for  it,  before  the  adjourn- 
ment.' ******         * 

"vVhen  we  met  again  at  the  capitol,  I  thought  I  discovered 
some  symptoms  of  that  change  in  the  Senator's  views  on  the 
subject  of  the  proviso,  which  he  has  since,  by  his  vote  and 
letter,  so  clearly  demonstrated.  Mr.  BrinkerhofT  of  Ohio,  one 
of  the  ablest  and  firmest  supporters  of  the  'proviso,'  an  honest 
and  sincere  democrat,  I  know  was  a  warm  friend  of  the 
Michigan  Senator,  and*  preferred  him  to  all  others  as  the  can- 
didate for  the  Presidency  in  184S.  I  mentioned  to  him  my 
suspicions.  I  told  him  the  Senator  was  in  the  cnrysilis 
state,"  &c.  ******* 

"Mr.  President,  at  the  suggestion  of  Mr.  B.  we  proceeded 
at  once  to  the  room  of  the  Senator.  Mr.  B.  led  off  in  some 
casual  remarks  about  the  'proviso'  and  its  prospects.  The 
Senator  'thought  it  premature — better  to  give  it  the  go-by 
this  session — nothing  to  be  sained  by  pressing  it  now — suffi- 
cient for  the  day  is  the  evTl  Thereof.'  " 

Mr.  Rathbun  went  on  to  give  an  account  of  the  views  he 
then  presented  to  Gen.  Cass,  shewing  the  necessity  for  press- 


7 

0 

?Bg  that  question  to  a  vote,  &c.  "The  Senator  replied,  <Oh, 
if  it  comes  to  a  vote,  I  am  with  you,  you  know.'  'Of  course, 
vuu  are,'  was  the  reply;  and  thus  we  separated.  This  con- 
versation was  some  three  weeks  previous  to  the  vote  taken 
on  ihe proviso" 

On  the  1st  of  March,  1847,  at  the  second  session  of  the  29th 
'  Congress,  Mr.  Upham  offered  the  Wilmot  proviso,  as  an 
amendment  to  the  Senate  three  million  bill.  Upon  this  amend- 
ment Gen.  Cass  addressed  the  Senate  at  length  ;  and,  in  his 
own  report  of  his  speech  on  that  occasion,  summed  up  his 
views  under  six  heads  ;  all  of  which  were  directed  against  the 
time  of  its  introduction — the  bill  to  which  it  was  offered  as  an 
amendment— and  against  the  expediency  of  adopting  it  then, 
because,  he  said,  it  was  destiuite  of  any  characterisiicof  "that 
permanence"  which  was  called  for  by  the  free  States  which  had 
memorialised  Congress  on  the  subject.  (See  Cong.  Globe, 
2d  sess.  29th  Cong. pp.  550-1. ) 

When  Gen.  Cass  had  taken  his  seat,  Mr.  Miller  said— "At 
.the  last  session,  when  a  bill  similar  to  the  one  now  under 
consideration  v/as  before  the  Senate,  it  was  generally  under- 
stood here  that  the  Senator  (Gen.  Cass,)  was  in  favor  of  re- 
taining in  that  bill  the  "Wilmot  proviso" — the  same  as  that 
now  offered  by  the  Senator  from  Vermont.  It  is  true,  for  want 
of  time,  the  Senator  had  not  then  an  opportunity  to  give  his 
vote;  yet  his  opinions  were  undisguised,  and  he  openly  avow- 
ed his  anxiety  to  vote  in  favor  of  the  proviso.  The  position 
of  the  Senator  upon  this  great  question  was  not  only  under- 
stood here,  but  his  friends  throughout  the  North  held  him  up 
as  one  of  the  great  champions  of  human  liberty;  as  the  un- 
compromising opponent  to  the  extension  of  the  institutions  of 
slavery  into  the  territories  where  it  did  not  exist." 

These  remarks  made  in  the  Senate,  in  the  presence  of  Gen, 
Cass,  were  permitted  to  go  to  the  world  uncontradicted;  and 
they  establish  'he  fact,  charged  and  proven  also  by  Mr.  Rath- 
bun,  that  at  the  first  session  of  the  29th  Congress,  Gen.  Cass 
was  a  leading  advocate  of  the  Wilmot  proviso;  and  that,  at 
the  second  session  he  voted  against  it,  only  because  it  was  not 
the  proper  time  to  vote  for  it. 

This  charge  has  attracted  some  attention,  and  has  been 
made  against  Gen.  Cass  in  various  forms  by  the  press.  Being 
uninformed  as  to  the  true  manner  in  which  he  exhibited  his 
disposition  to  vote  for.  the  Wilmot  proviso  at  the  first  session, 
it,  has  been  charged  by  some  to  have  been  in  a  speech  in  the 


Senate,  and  by  others  to  have  been  by  vote.  It  is  true,  a« 
above  alluded  to,  he  made  a  lengthy  speech  at  the  second  ses- 
sion against  voting  for  it;  but  he  was  careful,  in  not  a  line, 
nor  by  a  word,  to  denounce, it,  either  as  unconstitutional,  or 
as  an  outrage. 

This  matter — that  Gen.  Cass  was  decidedly  in  favor  of  that 
provso  at  the  first  session — is  set  at  rest  by  the  uncontradict-  ■ 
ed  testimony  of  Mr.  Rathbun  and  Mr   Miller. 

The  manner  in  which  he  exhibited  his  disposition  to  vote 
for  it,  is  thus  described  by  Mr.  Miller,  a  Senator  from  New 
Jersey,  in  a  debate  on  adjournment  in  the  Senate,  on  the  22d 
of  June,  1648.  He  stated  that  "when  the  two  million  bill,  in 
1846,  was  brought  into  the  Senate,  with  the  W'ilmot  proviso,, 
from  the.  House,  and  was  defeated  by  Mr.  Davis  of  Mass. 
speaking  to  the  hour  of  adjournment,  Mr.  Cass  afterwards 
went  over  to  the  whig  side  of  the  chamber,  and  complained 
in  terms  somewhat  discourteous,  that  Mr.  Davis,  by  his 
speech,  had  defeated  the  bill,  as  he  (Mr.  Cass)  had  deter- 
mined to  vote  for  the  Wilmot  proviso.  Then,  when  he  (Mr.. 
Miller)  travelled  to  the  North  ivilh  Mr.  Cass,  that  gentle- 
man held  the  same  language.  At  the  next  session,  to  his 
great  surprise,  Mr.  Cass  voted  against  the  proviso,  on  the 
ground  of  un fitness  of  the  time  for  inserting  it." 

These  remarks  were  made,  let  it  be  observed,  in  the  Senate, 
in  the  midst  of  a  partisan  debate  as  to  the  opinions  held  by 
the  great  parties  and  their  candidates;  and  were  again  per- 
mitted by  Gen.  Cass's  friends  to  go  to  the  world  uncontra- 
dicted, m  - 

Another  fact  is  thus  established,  by  the  concurring  testimo- 
ny of  Mr.  Rathbun  and  Mr.  Miller,  viz:  tnat  Mr.  Cass  was 
indignant  at  the  act  of  Mr.  Davis,  which  prevented  his  re- 
cording his  vote  for  the  proviso,  and  so  much  so,  as  to  com- 
plain to  the  whigs  of  the  act,  and  to  speak  freely  of  it  in  the 
railroad  cars,  on  his  way  home! 

In  addition  to  this  action  upon  the  Wilmot  proviso  by  Con- 
gress, ten  of  the  Northern  States,  through  their  legislatures, 
and  State  conventions,  endorsed  the  doctrine,  and  most  of 
them  petitioned  Congress  to  pass  "a  fundamental  law,"  which 
should  forever  exclude  slavery  from  the  territory  of  the  United 
States. 

EFFECT  UPON  THE  SOUTH. 

These  events  had  the  tendency  to  arouse,  to  some  degree* 
the  people  of  the  South  to  the  imminency  of  the  danger  pend- 


itig  over  them.  Southern  democrats  saw,  in  a  Congress  with 
an  unusually  large  democratic  majority,  the  passage  through 
one  of  its  branches,  by  aid  of  a  majority  of  Northern  demo- 
cratic votes,  of  a  principle,  which  if  recognized  would  de- 
grade the  South  and  strip  it  of  its  just  constitutional  righis. 
They'saw.  too,  that  nothing  prevented  that  flagrant  outrage 
from  passing  through  a  democratic  Senate,  by  aid  of  "every 
Northern  Democratic  Senator's"  vote,  but  the  trivial  incident 
of  the  last  moments  of  the  session  being  spoken  out  by  Mr. 
Davis,  a  Whig  Senator  from  Massachusetts,  who  desired  to 
defeat  the 'tiro  million  bill  to  which  this  "proviso"  was  at- 
tached as  an  amendment ! 

Southern  Whigs  saw  that  their  Northern  allies,  without  an 
exception,  had  aided  to  pass  this  "proviso"  through  all  its 
stages;  and  that  the  fact  of  its  being  finally  defeated  was 
solely  owing  to  its  not  being  acted  upon,  by  reason  of  the  op- 
position of  Mr.  Davis  to  the  appropriation  of  two  millions 
to  enable  Mr.  Poik  to  buy  a  peace  with  Mexico! 

The  people,  without  distinction  of  parlies,  met  in  their  pri- 
mary assemblies  to  give  voice  to  their  feelings  in  this  crisis. 
While  yet  the  danger  was  fresh  in  their  recollections — while 
yet  the  utter  vanity  of  relying  upon  any  "party"  for  support 
was  impressed  upon  their  minds  by  the  remembrance  of  the 
recent  recreancy,  and  union,  in  fact,  in  hostility  to  them  of 
both  the  great  parties  of  the  North,  these  popular  assemblies 
unanimously  resolved  that  the  principles  of  the  "proviso^ 
were  unconstitutional,  and  dangerous  to  the  very  existence  of 
the  Union;  and  unanimously  united  in  a  pledge  that  the 
South  would,  a3  one  oi  the  most  effectual  modes  of  resisting 
the  encroachment  and  crushing  the  heresy,  withhold  its  votes 
from  any  one  for  the  office  of  President  of  the  United  States, 
who  would  not  oppose  all  such  interference  with  its  rights  as 
the  "proviso"  contemplated.  The  State  of  Virginia  nobly 
led  the  way,  and  her  General  Assembly  unanimously  adopted 
a  series  of  resolutions,  which  declared  "it  to  be  the  natural  and 
indefeasible  right  of  each  and  every  citizen  of  each  and  every 
State  of  the  confederacy,  to  reside,  with  his  property,  of  what- 
ever description,  in  any  territory  which  may  be  acquired  by 
the  arms  of  the  United  States,  or  yielded  by  treaty  with  any 
foreign  power." 

EFFECT  UPON  THE  DEMOCRATIC  PARTY  IN  ALABAMA. 

On  the  3d  of  May,  1847,  a  State  Convention  of  the  Demo- 


10 

cracy  of  Alabama,  met  in  Montgomery — presided  over  by  the 
lion.  Win,  R.  King.  Tke  President  appointed  a  committee 
of  six  to  draft  and  report  resolutions  on  State  and  Federal 
policy.  I  was  a  member  of  that  committee.  It  reported  a 
series  of  resolutions  to  the  Convention,  which  was  unani- 
mously adopted.     The  9th  and  10th  were  as  follow: 

"9.  Resolved,  That  any  territory  which  may  hi  acquired  will  become  the 
common  property  of  all  the  States  of  this  Union,  and  will  be  held  by  the 
General  Government  as  their  joint  agent  and  representative;  and  having 
no  right  to  make  laws,  or  do  any  acts  whatever,  which  shall  directly,  or 
by  their  effects,  make  any  discrimination  between  the  States  of  this  Union, 
by  which  any  of  them  shall  be  deprived  of  its  full  and  equal  right  in  such 
territory. 

"10.  Resolved,  That  the  amendment  to  the  Three  Million  bill,  authori- 
zing the  appropriation  of  that  sum  ior  negotiating  a  peace  with  Mexico, 
which  provides  as  "a  fundamental  condition"  te  the  acquisition  of  any 
territory  from  the  Republic  of  Mexico,  "  that  slavery  shail  be  forever  ex- 
cluded" does  make  such  discrimination,  by  depriving  citizens  of  the  slave- 
holding  States  of  the  right  of  emigrating  with  their  property  into  such  ter- 
ritory; and  if  the. same  should  become  a  law,  would,  therefore,  be  a  viola- 
lion  of  the  Constitution,  and  of  the  rights  of  those  States — in  derogation 
of  their  perfect  equality  as  members  oi  the  Union,  and  tend  directly  to  sub- 
vert the  Union  itself." 

That  Convention. also  unanimously  endorsed  the  Virginia 
resolutions. 

It  will  be  seen,  by  an  analysis  of  the  resolutions,  both  of 
Alabama  and  Virginia  that,  while  they  were  specifically 
aimed  at  the  Wilmot  proviso,  as  one  of  the  means  to  be  used 
4o  destroy  the  rights  of  the  South  to  an  equal  participation  in 
the  territories,  yet  they  also  laid  down  broad  and  general 
principles,  which  denounced  every  means  of  effecting  the  end 
of  the  '"proviso"  principle,  to  wit:  "that  it  is  the  natural 
and  indefeasible  right  of  each  and  every  Stale  in  this  con- 
federacy to  reside,  ivith  his  properly ,  of  whatever  descrip- 
i'um,  in  any  territory  ivhicfy  may  be  acquired/'  &c. 

Nearly  every  Southern  State,  like  Alabama,  adopted  the 
Virginia  resolutions.  The  South,  as  recommended  by  Vir- 
ginia, did  take  ''firm,  united  and  concentrated  action  in  this 
emergency." 

EFFECT  OF  THIS  UNION  UPON  THE  NORTH. 

The  course  adopted  proved  the  truth  of  the  assertion  of 
Virginia,  that  it  was  "one  of  the  most  effective  modes"  that 
could  have  been  devised  to  attain  our  object.  The  North  had 
iuimerous  candidates  for  the  Presidency:   amom,  them.  Gen. 


11 

■Cass,  Mr.  Buchanan  and  Mr.  Dallas.  Virginia  had  supposed 
that  the  union  of  the  South  would  be  "effective"  in  this — that 
whichever  of  the  candidates  should  receive  the  entire  vote  of 
the  South  would,  with  whatever  of  influence  he  had  at  the 
North,  be  certain  of  being  elected;  and  that  this  would  be 
"effective"  in  causing  candidates  to  abandon  views  which 
the  South  condemned.     Virginia  was  not  mistaken. 

Mr.  Buchanan  broke  ground  in  August,  5  847,  against  the 
North  taking  all  of  the  new  territory  to  be  acquired,  and  ex- 
pressed it  as  his  opinion  that  "the  harmony  and  even  security 
of  the  Union  itself,  require  that  the  line  of  the  Missouri  com- 
promise should  be  extended  to  any  new  territory  that  we 
may  acquire  from  Mexico."  (This,  be  it  observed,  would 
give  about  four-fifths  of  it,  absolutely,  to  "our  natural  allies") 
While,  lest  Northern  cupidity  should  condemn  the  bold  states- 
man for  so  large  a  concession  to  the  South,  he  went  on  to  ad- 
vance tiie  doctrine,  that  the  inhabitants  of  that  territory  would 
have  a  right  to  prevent  its  settlement  by  slav«e  holders;  and 
declared  that  should  we  acquire  territory  from  Mexico,  it  was 
"improbable  that  a  majority  of  the  people  of  that  region  would 
consent  to  re-establish  slavery  They  are  themselves,  in  a 
large  proportion,  a  colored  population  ;  and  among  them  the 
negro  does  not  socially  belong  to  a  degraded  race  "  To  Mr. 
Buchanan,  therefore,  is  due  the  credit  of  first  giving  the  go- 
by to  the  Wilmot  proviso,  as  a  means  of  excluding  slave- 
holders from  our  new  territories,  but,  at  the  sarau  time,  of 
pointing  out  to  the  North  how  much  more  effectually  the 
great  end  of  the  provisoists — the  keeping  these  territories 
exclusively  for  the  settlement  of  Northern  emigrants — could 
be  obtained  by  advocating  the  new  doi-trine,  that  the  inha- 
bitants of  a  territory,  while  yet  in  its  territorial  state, 
could  prevent  the  emigration  thither  of  slave-holders. 

Lest  this  should  startle  the  South,  however,  and  thus  leave 
him  between  two  fires — one  from  the  North,  for  opposing  the 
Wilmet  proviso,  and  one  from  the  South,  for  throwing  her 
rights  upon  the  tender  mercies  of  "the  colored  population"  of 
these  territories,  Mr.  Buchanan  proposed  to  both  the  alarmed 
sections  to  unite  on  the  Missouri  compromise.  A  compro- 
mise which  admits  the  power  of  Congress  over  the  matter, 
and  derives  all  its  stability  and  force  from  an  act  of  Congress! 

Mr.  Dallas,  in  a  speech  at  Pittsburg,  in  September  follow- 
ing, also  took  strong  constitutional  ground  against  the  power 
of  Congress,  and  boldly  and  most  nobly  denounced  the  Mis- 


12 

souri  compromise,  as  a  concession  which  the  South  had  no 
right  to  make,  and  the  North  no  right  to  demand. 

In  December  following,  Gen  Cass  followed  suit  in  his  fa- 
mous ietter  to  Mr.  Nicholson,  of  Tennessee. 

In  that  letter  he  says — "I  am  strongly  impressed  with  the 
opinion  that  a  great  change  has  been  going  on  in  the  public 
mind  upon  this  subject — in  my  own,  as  well  as  others/'  He 
asserts,  in  that  letter,  thai  the  interference  of  Congress  ''should 
be  limited  to  the  creation  of  proper  governments  for  new 
countries,  acquired  or  settled,  and  to  the  necessary  provision 
for  their  eventual  admission  into  the  Union;  leaving,  in  the 
mean  time,  to  the  people  inhabiting  them  to  regula.'e  their 
internal  concerns  in  their  own  way.  They  are  just  as  capa- 
ble of  doing  so  as  the  people  of  the  States;  and  they  can  do  so, 
at  any  rate,  as  soon  as  their  political  independence  is  recog- 
nized by  admission  into  the  Union."  Gen.  Cass,  in  that  let- 
ter, gave  his  views  at  great  length,  and  quoted  Mr.  Buchanan 
(the  passage  ajready  quoted  by  me  on  page  11)  as  presenting 
"similar  considerations,  with  great  force,"  and  also  quoted  this 
passage  from  Mr.  Walker,  as  expressive  of  the  views  urged, 
'■"Beyond  the  Del  Norte  slavery  will  not  pass;  not  only  be- 
cause it  is  forbidden  by  law"  (the  law  of  Mexico  abolishing 
slavery  in  its  limits,)  "but  because  the  colored  race  there  pre- 
ponderates in  the  ratio  oj  ten  to  one  over  the  whites;  and 
holding,  as  they  do,  the  government  and  most  of  the  offices 
in  their  possession,  "they  will  not  permit  the  enslavement  of 
any  portion  of  the  colored  race,'''  &c.  To  this  Gen.  Cass 
added,  "The  question,  it  will  be  therefore  seen  on  examina- 
tion, does  not  regard  the  exclusion  of  slavery  from  a  region 
where  it  now  exists,  out  a  prohibition  against  its  introduction 
where  it  does  not  exist;  and  where,  from  the  feelings  of  the 
inhabitants,  and  the  laws  of  nature,  'it  is  morally  impossi- 
ble,' as  Mr.  Buchanan  says,  'that  it  can  ever  re-establish  it- 
self.' " 

This  "firm,  united  and  concerted  action"  on  the  part  of  the 
South,  already  described,  was  doubtless  the  most  "effective" 
reason  for  the  change  which  took  place  in  the  opinions  of 
candidates  for  the  Presidency  and  in  the  votes  of  the  29th. 
Congress:  for,  whereas,  the  ''proviso"  had  passed  the  House 
of  Representatives,  at  the  first  session  of  the  29th  Congress, 
it  was  rejected  at  the  second  session  of  that  Congress:  and 
whereas,  "every  Northern  Democratic  Senator  had  agreed  ta> 
vote  for  it"  at  the  first  session,  several  Northern  Democratic 


13 

Senators  voted  against  it  at  the  second  section  of  the  same 
Congress. 

These  results  may  be  thus  briefly  summed  up. 

1.  Mr.  Wilmot,  and  his  coadjutors,  had  sought  to  obtain 
the  aid  of  Congress  to  establish  this  principle,  viz:  "that  there 
shall  be  neither  slavery  nor  involuntary  servitude  in  any  ter- 
ritory on  the  continent  of  America  which  shall  hereafter  be 
acquired  or  annexed." 

2.  The  provisoists  succeeded  in  passing  it  through  the 
House  of  Representatives  at  the  first  session  of  the  29th  Con- 
gress, and  Gen.  Cass,  and  ''every  Northern  Democratic  Sena- 
tor had  agreed  to  vote  for  it,"  but  "very  much"  to  the  regret 
of  Gen.  Cass,  he  was  deprived  of  the  privilege,  by  Mr.  Davis 
speaking  out  the  last  moments  of  the  Seriate.  m 

.3.  The  South,  without  disiinciion  of  party,  through  her 
primary  meetings,  and  in  the  legislature  of  the  States,  took 
"firm,  united  and  concentrated  action"  against  the  "proviso," 
and  declared  our  territories  to  be  common  property,  in  which 
the  citizens  of  each  and  every  State  can  reside,  with  his  pro- 
perty, as  lcng  as  such  territories  remain  under  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  United  States. 

4.  The  majority  of  the  democracy  of  the  North,  with  Cass, 
gave  up  the  idea  of  using  the  power  of  Congress  to  effect  the 
exclusion  of  slavery  from  the  territories,  but  took  two  new 
positions,  shewing  how  the  end  could  be  more  surely  attain- 
ed, to  wit: 

1st.  The  Mexican  law.  abolishing  slavery,  will  remain  in 
force  until  repealed  by  Congress. 

2d.  The  inhabitants  of  the  territories  .we  may  acquire  will 
have  the  right  "to  regulate  their  internal  concerns  in  their 
own  way,"  and  as  "the  colored  race  there  preponderates  in 
the  ratio  often  to  one  over  the  whites;  and  holding,  as  they 
do,  the  government  and  most  of  the  offices  in  their  possession, 
they  will  not  permit  the  enslavement  of  any  portion  of  the 
colored  race,  which  makes  and  executes  the  laws  of  the  coun- 
try;" for  "among  them,"  as  we  are  assured  by  the  letters  of 
Gen.  Cass  and  Mr.  "Buchanan,  "the  negro  does  not  belong  so- 
cially to  a  degraded  race" 

5.  These,  views,  first  suggested  by  Mr.  Buchanan  and  Mr. 
Walker,  were  only  compiled,  endorsed  and  promulgated  as 
one  complete  basis  of  political  action  on  this  issue,  by  Gen , 
Cass,  in  his  letter  to  Mr.  Nicholson,  dated  24th  of  December, 
1847,  from  which  I  have  freely  quoted. 


14 

EFFECT  OF  THE  NEW  ISSUE  UPON  ALABAMA. 

Oil  the  14th  of  December,  1S48.  a  State  Convention  of  tfr&> 
Democracy  of  Alabama,  convened  at  Montgomery.  Forty- 
four  of  the  fifty  counties  of  the  .State  were  represented  in  that 
body.  One  hundred  and  eighty-eight  delegates  were  in  at- 
tendance, composing,  it  has  been  said,  a  larger  assemblage  of 
the  talent  of  the  democracy  of  the  State  than  ever  before  as- 
sembled for  sucb  purposes*  It  may  not  be  considered  invi- 
dious to  mention  that  it  was  composed  in  part  of  such  men  as 
Walthall,  L.  P.Walker,  McClung,  J.  A.  Elmore,  Terry.  Hey- 
denfelt,  Cottrell,  H.  Rose,  Creagh,  Sanford,  Beckett,  Er- 
win,  and  McCormick ;  and  perhaps,  in  mentioning  leading 
men,  (as  the  idea  of  "a  leader  for  the  old  fashioned  matter  of 
fact  democracy  of  Alabama"  seems  to  be  a  leadingoae  in  his 
head  at  this  time.)  I  should  not  fail  to  mention  as  being  there 
a  gentleman  that. lias  received  the  appellation  of  ''the  father 
of  the  Alabama  democracy,"  (from  a  delegate,  in  a  speech 
made  before  the  Convention  at  Baltimore,)  and  therefore  cer- 
tainly entitled  to  have  mention  made  of  him,  when  such 
young  democrats,  as  I  have  alluded  to,  are  named,  to  w'it: 
Mr.  J.  A.  Winston. 

The  Convention  having  organized,  a  committee  of  seven 
were  appointed  by  the  President  to  prepare  resolutions,  late 
at  night  of  the  first  day.  The  committee  consisted  of  "John 
McCormick,  T.  Sanford,  J.  M.  Beckett,  L.  Wyeth,  S  Hay* 
denfeldt,  G.  R.  Evans,  and  L.F.  Cottrell."  That  committee 
did  not  report  until  the  next  evening.  It  then  reported,  a  se- 
ries of  eighteen  resolutions— the  first  six  of  which  related  to 
general  party  policy,  and  10  Gen.  Taylor.  The  seventh  read 
thus: 

"  7th.  Resolved,  accordingly,  That  we  will  support  for  the  Presidency 
and  Vice  Presidency  the  candidates  nominated  by  a  Democratic  National 
Convention,  to  be  held  in  Baltimore,  on  the  fourth  Monday  in  May  next,—- 
as  recommended  by  the  democratic  members  of  Congress ;  and  that  we. 
do  appoint  delegates  thereto,  to  represent  the  democracy  of  this  State. 
Subject,  however,,  to  one  special  instruction,  not  as  necessary  for  them,  but 
as  a  notice,  in  all  frankness,  to  our  brethren  elsewhere,  that  they  do  not 
concur  in,  nor  pledge  our  support  to  the  nomination  of  any  candidates 
who  shall  not  be  explicit  in  the  renunciation  of  all  claims  to  federal  inter- 
ference with  slavery  in  the  territories." 

The  eighth  exhibited  the  contrast  which  existed  between 
Northern  whig  and  democratic  statesmen  on  the  slavery  is- 
sue, as  being  favorable  to-  the  democratic  statesmen.    The- 


1*5 

9th,  IOth,  11th,  12th,  13th,  14th,,  15th,  1,6th  resolutions- were 
upon  the  war  questions. 

The  17th,  18th,  were  as  follows: 

''•Resolved,  That  any  territory  which  has  been,  or  may  be  acquired  by 
the  United  State?,,  either  by  purchase  or  conquest,  of  right  belongs  to  the 
people  of  all  the  States  and  that  they  have  the  constitutional  right  to  mi- 
grate to  any  of  such  territories,  with  their  property  «f  every  description, 
and  to  be  protected  there m  ;  and  no  power  exists  in  Congress,  or  else- 
where, to  deny  to  any  of  the  people  of  any  of  the  States  the  right  to  remove 
into  and  occupy,  with  their  property  of  whatever  description,  any  portion, 
of  such  territory. 

"Resolved,  That  no  cession  of  territory  to  the  United  States  by  the  au- 
thorities of  Mexico  will  be  acceptable  to  the  people  of  this  State,  unless  for 
the  territory  ceded  south  of  36  deg.  30  min.  it  is  distinctly  provided  in  the 
treaty  of  cession  that  such  territory  shall  be,  and  shall  reman?,  £0  long  as 
it  remains  a  territory  of  the  United  States,,  free  and  open  to  all  the  people 
of  the  United 'States,  together  with  their  property  of  every  description." 

Knowing  how  deep  an  interest  a  large  number  of  the  Con- 
vention felt  in  the  nomination  of  Mr.  Buchanan  for  the  Pre- 
sidency, solely  with  a  view  to  the  success  of  Col.  W.  It  King 
to  the  Vice  Presidency,  I  had  felt  somewhat  anxious  to  have 
our  declarations  of  principles  made  so  decided,  that  Southern 
rights  should  not  be  compromised,  merely  to  secure  the  per- 
sonal advancement  of  any  individual.  I  had  no  fears  that  the 
committee  would  wilfully  lend  itself  to  such  a  purpose;  but 
thought  it  not  amiss  rigidly  to  scrutinize  the  resolutions,  and 
see  how  far  they  would  bind  the  delegates  selected.  The 
seventh  resolution  reported,  contained  the  weak  point  appre- 
hended by  me.  While  the  17th  and  ISth  resolutions,  in  clear 
and  explicit  terms  met  and  denounced  [he  new  form  in  which 
the  provisoists  had  presented  their  great  issue  "free  territo- 
ries"— while  those  resolutions  (strangely  placed  by  some 
means  at  the  tail  of  the  report,  which  I  did  not  then  under- 
stand as  fully  as  I  do  now,)  pronounced  that  "no  power  ex- 
ists in  Congress,  or  elsewhere,  to  deny  to  any  of  the  people  of 
any  of  the  States  the  right  to  remove  into,  and  occupy,  with 
their  property  of  whatever  description,  any  portion  of  such 
territory,"  and  demanded  that  the  treaty  should  provide  that 
such  territory  should  "  be  free  and  open  to  all  the  people  of 
the  United  States,  together  with  their  property  of  every  de- 
scription,'7 it  was  a  most  remarkable  fact,  that  the  committee 
had  reported  "but  one  special  instruction"  and  that  was,  in 
the  seventh  resolution-,  that  the  delegation  "do  not  concur  in 
hor  pledge  our  support  to  tho  nomination  of  any  candidal© 


16 

•who  shall  not  be  explicit  in  the  renunciation  of  all  claims  (o 
federal  interference  with  slavery  in  the  territories" — thus 
leaving  the  delegation,  if  it  suited  ihem,  to  vote  for  any  one 
who  held  that  the  Mexican  law  could  exclude  us  from  the 
territories,  and  that  "the  inhabitants  of  these  territories"  could 
exclude  us  from  going  there,  they  "being  a  colored  popula- 
tion, among  whotn  the  negro  does  not  belong  socially  to  a 
degraded  race." 

While  preparing  some  resolutions  I  had  with  me,  to  offer 
in  the  shape  of  an  amendment  to  the  resolution  of  instruc- 
tions, Mr.  Semple  offered  an  amendment,  which,  while  it  had 
the  same  object  in  view  that  I  had,  took  grounds  which  were 
thought  to  be  impracticable,  and  perhaps  unjust.  Mr.  Sem- 
ples  resolution  was  discussed  by  J  A.  Elmore,  Esq  in  favor 
of  the  end  sought  to  be  accomplished  by  Mr.  S.  and  opposed 
by  Mr.  J. 'A.  Winston  and  Mr.  McCormick  At  this  stage  of 
the  discussion,  when  the  Convention  wa's  fully  aroused  to  the 
matter  at  issue,  and  when  too,  as  far  as  I  could  observe,  there 
was  the  largest  attendance  of  members  and  audience,  both  in 
the  hall  and  lobby,  1  offered  the  amendment  which  appeared 
in  the  published  report  of  the  proceedings  of  that  body,  striking 
out  all  of  the  seventh  resolution,  which  dictated  the  "one  spe- 
cial resolution"  inclusive,  and  inserting  the  preamble  and  9, 
10,  11,  12,  13  and  14th  resolutions  As  important  to  a  correct 
understanding  of  the  matters  at  issue,  I  insert  that  amendment 
at  length. 

THE  ALABAMA  PLATFORM. 

"Whereas,  opinions  have  been  expressed  by  eminent  members  of  the 
democratic  party,  and  by  a  Convention  of  the  party  in  New  York,  assem- 
bled for  the  purpose  of  selecting  delegates  to  the  Baltimore  Convention, 
that  the  municipal  laws  of  the  Mexican  territories  would  not  be  changed  in 
the  ceded  territory  by  the  cession  to  the  United  States,  and  that  slavery 
could  not  be  re-established,  except  by  the  authority  of  fhe  United  States,  or 
of  the  legislature  of  the  territorial  government — that  no  doubts  should  be 
allowed  to  exist  upon  a  subject  so  important,  and  at  the  same  time  so  ex- 
citing.    Be  it  further 

"9.  Resolved,  That  the  treaty  of  cession  should  contain  a  clause  securing 
an  entry  into  those  territories  to  all  'the  citizens  of  the  United  States,  to- 
gether with  their  property  of  every  description,  and  that  the  same  should 
remain  protected  by  the  United  States  while  the  territories  are  under  its 
authority. 

"10.  Resolved,  That  if  it  should  be  found  inconvenient  to  insert  such  a 
clause  into  the  treaty  of  cession,  that  our  Senators  and  Representatives  in 
Congress  should  be  -vigilant  to  obtain,  before  the  ratification  of  such  a 
treaty,  ample  securities  that  the  rights  of  the  Southern  people  should  not 
be  endangered  during  the  period  the  territories  shall  remain  under  the 


17 

control  pf  the  United  States,  either  from  the  continuance  of  the  municipal 
laws  of  Mexico,  or  from  the  legislation  of  the  United  States. 

"11.  Resolved,  That  the  opinion  advanced  and  maintained  by  some,  that 
the  people  of  a  territory,  acquired  by  the  common  toil,  suffering,  blood  and 
treasure  of  the  people  of  all  the  States  can,  in  other  events  than  in  the 
forming  a  Constitution  preparatory  to  admittance  as  a  State  into  the 
Union,  lawfully  or  constitutionally  prevent  any  citizen  of  any  such  States 
from  removing  to,  or  settling  in  such  territory,  with  his  property,  be  it  slave 
property  or  otherwise,  is  a  restriction  as  indefensible  in  principle,  and  as 
dangerous  in  practice,  as  ii  such  restriction  were  imposed  by  act  of 
■Congress. 

"12.  Resolved,  That  the  democratic  party  is,  and  should  be,  co-extensive 
with  the  Union;  and  that,  while  we  disclaim  all  intention  to  interfere  in  the 
local  divisions  and  controversies  in  any  of  our  sister  States,  we  deem  it  a 
solemn  duty,  which  we  owe  to  the  Constitution,  to  ourselves,  and  to  that 
party,  to  declare  our  unalterable  determination  neither  to  recognize  as 
democrats  or  to  hold  fellowship  or  communion  with  those  who  attempt  to 
denationalize  the  South  and  its  institutions,  by  restrictions  upon  its  citizens 
and  those  institutions,  calculated  to  array  one  section,  in  feeling  and  senti- 
ment against  the  other;  and  that  we  hold  the  same  to  be  .alike  treason  to 
party  faith  and  to  the  perpetuity  of  the  Union  of  these  States. 

"13  Resolved,  That  this  Convention  pledges  itself  to  the  country,  and  its 
members  pledge  themselves  to  each  other,  under  no  political  necessity  what- 
ever, to  support  for  the  offices  of  President  and  Vice  President  of  the 
United  States  any  persons  who  shall  not  openly  and  avowedly  be  opposed 
to  either  of  the  forms  of  excluding  slavery  from  the  territories  of  the  United 
States  mentioned  in  the  resolutions,  as  being  alike  in  violation  of  the  Con- 
stitution and  of  the  just  and  equal  rights  of  the  citizens  of  the  slaveholding 
States. 

"14.  Resolved,  That  these  resolutions  be  considered  as  instructions  to 
•our  delegates  to  the  Baltimore  Convention,  to  guide  them  in  their  votes  in 
that  body;  and  that  they  vote  for  no  men  for  President  or  Vice  President, 
who  will  not  unequivocally  avow  themselves  to  be  opposed  to  either  of  the 
forms  of  restricting  slavery,  which  are  described  in  these  resolutions." 

After  reading  my  amendment  I  spoke  upon  it  for  forty-five 
minutes,  when  I  was  stopped  bv  the  chairman  of  the  com- 
mittee, who  ^said  he  was  authorized  to  accept  of  the  amend- 
ment. Before  this,  Mr.  Semple  had  withdrawn  his,  and  also 
accepted  mine.  In  my  remarks,  I  spoke  of  the  "one  special 
instruction"  called  for  by  the  report  of  the  committee.  I  drew 
attention  to  the  fact  that  it  only  called  upon  the  delegates  to 
vote  against  any  one  who  was  in  favor  of  "federal  interference 
with  slavery."  I  remarked  that  no  prominent  candidate,  that 
I  knew  of,  was  then  in  favor  of  that  doctrine — that  it  had  been 
killed,  as  fur  as  the  democracy  was  concerned,  by  the  "firm, 
united  and  concerted  action"  of  the  South.  I  then  read  to 
the  Convention  extracts  from  the  letters  of  Mr.  Buchanan 
and  Gen.  Cass,  and  endeavored  to  show  the  unconstitution- 

B 


IS 

ality  of  the  views  advanced  by  (hem,  in  favor  of  permitting 
settlers  in  a  territory  to  exclude  slaveholders.  I  then  read 
from  a  letter  in  my  possession,  (stating  it  to  be  "reliable  au- 
thority,") J^idge  Wood bmy's  views.  I  then  read  Mr.  hag- 
by's  views,  and  pointed  out  their  great  similarity  to  those 
field  by  Judge  W.;  and  called  upon  the  Convention  to  take 
high  ground — that  it  never  would  be  taken  from  us  by  office- 
seeking  politicians — but  that  when  united  and  de'ermined, 
we  had  ever  been  able  to  force  them  from  a  hostile  position, 
and  I  doubted  not  we  should  succeed  in  doing  so  again 

When  I  concluded,  I  was  asked  to  read  my  amendment 
ogam  for  information  I  did  so,  and  handed  it  up  to  the 
clerk's  desk.  Mr.  Cottrelt- remarked  that  the  17th  and  ISth 
resolutions  of  the  committee  advanced  pretty  much  the  same 
doctrine,  and  therefore,  to  avoid  a  repetition,  he  moved  that 
they  be  struck  out.  This  was  agreed  to.  I  was  again  called 
upon,  the  tljird  time,,  [as  I  could  read  my  writing  better  than 
the  clerk  could  do. J  to  read  the  resolutions  composing  my 
amendment  at  the  clerk's  desk.  I  did  so.  The  question  was 
then  put,  and  they  were  adopted  unanimously — not  a  voice 
feeing  raised  against  them  in  discussion,  nor  in  the  vote! 

Mr.  Winston  says — "fir  the  sake  of  harmony,  and  the  hour 
being  late,  they  were  permitted  to  pass!" 

The  editor  o!  .the  State  Gazette  says — "the  instructions  came 
not  from  the  people,  but  from  himself  (Mr,  Yancey.)  and  a 
slippery  politician  of  Mobile,  long  since  gone  .over  to  Gen. 
Taylor!  This  is  the  source  whence  came  these  famous  '■■in- 
structions" that  were  smuggled  into  the  Democratic  Conven- 
tion on  the  very  eve  of  its  adjournment." 

Par  nobile  fratrum!  The  one,  an  excise  officer,  whose 
duty  it  was  to  prevent  smuggling  ;*the  other  a  spy,  in  a  thicket! 
—-seeing  (he  whole  plot  concocted  thus  to  cheat  the  democracy 
of  the  privilege  of  voting  for  Buchanan  or  Cass;  and  the  two 
doubtless,  from  having  a  common  object,  in  full  communion  ; 
and  yet  be  so  recreant  to  their  trust  as  to  permit  it  all  to  pass 
'for  the  sake  of  harmony,  and  the  hour  being,  late!'"  Verily 
this  is  a  capital  reason  for  a  delegate  in  a  Democratic  Conven- 
tion to  assign  for  not  opposing  the  adoption  of  "a  South  Caro- 
lina heresy,"  and  its  incorporation  into  the  democratic  creed! 
i-Fur  the  sake  of  harmony,"  he  permitted  a  matter  *o  pass 
which  was  to  guide  the  entire  vote  of  Alabama  in  the 
councils  of  the  great,  democratic  party  of  the  Union;  and 
'"the  hour  being  late,''  was  of  course  no  time  to  oppose  a» 


19 

error !  And  all  this  from  that  noted  lover  of  "harmony"  J.  A„ 
Winston! 

The  editor  of  the  Franklin  Democrat,  in  an  editorial  in  •his 
paper  of  the  21st  Jane,  18-18,  presumed  to  be  written  by  a 
member  and  delegate  from  Franklin,  thus  discourses  of  the 
writer  of  this  address.  ''Then  we  find  him,  at  the  very  close 
of  the  Democratic  State  Convention,  when  the  members  were 
dispersing,  and  none  suspecting  his  design,  urging,  and  uufor-. 
Umately  securing  the  adoption  of  two  resolutions,  in  Which 
were  adroitly  inserted  clauses  claiming  for  the  President,  and 
Congress  '.he  right  to  provide  that  slavery  shall  be  introduced 
into  the  territory  acquired  of  Mexico.  The  absurdity  of  these 
resolutions  we  exposed  at  the  time,  and  dissented  from  the 
position  they  assumed,  as  not  being  in  accordance  with  the 
feeling  and  opinions  of  the  democracy  of  Alabama." 

The  journal  of  the  proceedings  of  that  body  show  that  offer 
the  adoption  ofthese  resolutions,  a  resolution  recommending 
iMr.  Polk  for  re  election  was  offered  in  Convention  (was  dis- 
cussed by  the  mover  and  by  Cctl.  Rose)  and  was  amended  at 
nay  instance.  That  a  resolution  recommending  Col  King  to 
the  consideration  of  the  Convention,  as  a  candidate  for  the 
Vice  Presidency,  was  introduced  That  a  resolution  was 
■offered,  giving  to  the  delegates  power  to  fill  vacancies — was 
discussed,  and  voted  down;  and  a  resolution  denying  to  them 
the  power  was  adopted.  That  a  resolution  watf  offered,  giving 
ij  the  body  of  the  electors  power  to  fill  vacancies.  That  a 
resolution  was  offered,  discussed  and  rejected,  calling  for  a 
committee  to  prepare  an  address,  &c.  That  a  resolution  was 
offered,  considered  and  passed,  recommending  to  the  counties 
to  hold  primary  meetings  and  appoint  sub-electors.  That  a 
resolution  as  to  printing  the  proceedings,  and  raising  money,. 
Was  considered  at  some  length  before  being  adopted;  and 
then  the  usual  resolutions  of  thanks,  &c.  v/ere  offered  ! 

'-None  suspecting  his  design!"  —When  everv  member  of 
that  body  listened  for  three  quarters  of  an  hour  to  an  expo- 
sure of  the  unsoundness  of  Cass  and  Buchanan,  and  to  rea- 
sons why  we  ought  to  leave  no  room,  for  our  delegates  to  vote 
for  any  such  men! 

uThe  absurdity  ofthese  resolutions  toe  exposed  at  the 
timi!"  It  is  believed  that  "we"  was  a  member  of  that  con- 
vebtion,  but  that  he  kept  whatever  of  ''absurdity"  he  had 
about  him  "at  the  time"  to  himself,  is  well  known.  Not  a 
voice  was  raised  against  them?     The  authorized  representa- 


20 

lives  of  the  Democracy  of  Alabama  sent  them  forth  to  the 
world,  as  sound  in  theory  and  wise  in  practice;  and  pledged 
:hemselves  "to  each  other  and  to  the  country,  under  no  poli- 
tical necessity  whatever,"  to  recede  from  the  position  taken 
on  that  night. 

ACTION    OF    THE  GENERAL   ASSEMBLY    ON    THE    NEW    PROVISO- 
ISSUE. 

Joint  resolutions  were  afterwards  passed  by  the  General 
Assembly  of  the  State,  declaring  the  territories  of  the  United 
States  to  be  "the  common  ground  of  all  the  United  States" — 
that  the  Constitution  "does  not  authorize  it  (Congress)  to  de- 
prive a  citizen  of  any  of  *the  United  States  of  his  property, 
whatever  it  may  be,  in  any  such  territory  except  for  'public 
us<j.'  and  upon  making  '  just  compensation'  therefor:  That  if 
it  is  the  duty  of  the  Federal  Government  to  protect  such  pro- 
perty from  seizure  or  confiscation  en  the  ocean,  which  is  com- 
mon to  all  nations,  much  stronger  is  the  duty  to  afford  that 
protection  in  our  territory,  \vhich  is  the  common  ground  of 
all  the  States,"  &c 

The  sixth  section  pledges  the  State  to  support  no  man  for 
Presidency  "whose  known  political  opinions  do  not  give  as- 
surance that  he*wil!  exercise  the  powers  of  his  office  to  pro- 
tect and  maintain  the  constitutional  rights  of  the  slavehold- 
ers," &c.     (See  tflcis  of  Alabama,  p.  450. ) 

ACTS  OP  GEORGIA,  FLORIDA  AND  VIRGINIA,  ON  THIS  ISSUB. 

This  view  of  the  new  issue  was  not  confined  to  Alabama. 
The  legislature  of  Georgia,  as  we  are  informed  by  the  press, 
adopted,  among  others,  the  following: 

"Be  it  further  resolved,  by  the  .authority  aforesaid,  That  any  territory  ac- 
quired, or  to  be  acquired,  by  the  arms  of  the  United  States,  or  by  treaty 
with  a  foreign  power,  becomes  the  common  property  of  the  several  Slates 
composing  this  Confederacy;  and  whilst  it  so  continues  it  is  the  right  of 
each  citizen  of  each  and  every  State  to  reside,  with  his  property  of  every 
description,  within  such  territory." 

The  Democratic  State  Convention  of  Florida  also  adopted 
the  following,  among  other  resolutions: 

"Resolved,  That  our  delegates  to  the  Democratic  Convention,  proposed 
to  be  held  at  Baltimore,  on  the  4th  Monday  in  May  next  to  nominate  can- 
didates for  the  Presidency  and  Vice  Presidency  of  the  United. States,  are 
hereby  instructed  to  support  no  persons  for  those  offices  who  will  sanction 
any  attempt  to  interfere  with  or  control  the  equal  right  of  the  citizens  oi 
each  and  every  State,  with  their  slaves  or  any  other  property,  to  remove 


21 

to  and  occupy  territory  which  now  belongs  to  the  United  States,  or  may 
hereafter  be  acquired  by  them'  whether  such  interference  or  restrictions, 
are  imposed  by  Congress,  directly,  through  its  own  acts,  or  mediately,  through 
powers  conferred  on,  or  conceded  to,  the  inhabitants  of  each  territory" 

On  the  29th  of  February  184S,  a  State  Convention  of  the 
Democracy  of  Virginia  adopted  a  series  of  resolutions,  endors- 
ing fully  the  proceedings  of  our  own  Convention,  and  among 
them  appear  the  following: 

"7th.  That,  as  republicans  and  citizens  of  one  of  the  free  and  equal 
States  of  this  Union,  we  do  most  earnestly  protest  against  the  Winthrop 
and  Wilmot  provisos,  as  wanton  violations  of  the  Constitution  and  wilful 
assaults  on  the  rights  and  interests  of  one  portion  of  our  Confederacy,  and 
do  most  solemnly  declare  that  there  is  no  power  either  in  Congress,  or  a 
territorial  Legislature,  which  is  its  creature,  nor  any  where  else,  save  only 
in  the  people  ot  a  territory  in  the  adoption  of  a  State  Constitution  prepara- 
tory to  admission  into  the  Union,  to  prevent  the  migration  of  any  citizen  of 
any  State,  with  his  property,  whether  it  be  slaves  or  any  thing  else,  to  any 
domain  which  may  be  acquired  by  the  common  blood  and  treasure  of  the 
people  of  all  the  States. 

"8th.  That  this  Convention  heartily  responds  to  the  noble  Resolutions 
of  the  Alabama  State  Democratic  Convention,  and  will  "under  no  political 
necessity  whatever,"  support  for  the  Presidency,  any  person  who  shall 
not  be  the  firm  and  avowed  opponent  of  any  plan  or  doctrine,  which 
in  any  way  interferes  with  the  right  of  citizens  of  any  one  State  to  possess 
and  enjoy  all  their  property  in  any  territory  which  may  be  acquired  by  the 
Union,  as  fully,  completly  and  securely  as  citizens  of  any  other  State  shall 
enjoy  theirs — except  so  tar  as,  that  being  unwilling  to  disturb  the  Missouri 
compromise,  we  are  content  with  adherence  to  its  principles. 

"9th.  That,  subject  to  the  indispensable  condition  already  stated,  we  will 
support  any  democrat  who  may  receive  the  nomination  of  the  National 
Convention  which  will  assemble  in  Baltimore  on  the  fourth  Monday  in  May 
.  aext." 

OPINION  OP  THE  PRESS  UPON  THIS  ISSUE. 

Soon  after  our  State  Convention  adjourned,  the  set  of  poli- 
ticians in  this  State,  (whose  machinations  the  resolutions  of 
instructions  to  our  delegates  to  the  Baltimore  Convention  '<to 
guide  them  in  their  votes  in  that  body,"  were  designed  in  part 
to  prevent,)  put  their  heads  together  to  concert  some  scheme 
by  which  they  might  break  the  meshes  of  those  instructions, 
and  attain  their  favorite  object — the  nomination  of  Mr  Buch- 
anan— which  they  preferred  "chiefly  for  the  reason,  that  they 
thought  there  was  a  better  prospect  of  getting  Col.  King  nomi- 
nated on  a  ticket  with  him,  than  with  any  of  the  rest."  (See 
Mr.  A.  J.  Saffold's  letter  )  The  result  was  a  systematic  and 
continued  attack  upon  the  late  State  Convention,  and  the  re- 
solutions adopted  by  it,  both  by  the  editor  of  the  State  G-b 


22 

zeite  (a  subsidized  paper  of  a    very  recent  existence  in  our 
State)  and  an  anonymous  Correspondent— "Giles." 

The  resolutions  were  pronounced — fohav.e"been  written  hi 
haste,  as  they  were  adopted  without  consideration" — thev 
'were  said  to  '-have  been  regarded  as  a  trick  to  commit  Alaba- 
ma against  all  Northern  aspirants  for  the  Presidency,  except 
Mr  Woodburv" — "it  is  Certain  they  were  received,  at  the 
time  of  their  adoption,  as  laying  down  abstractions'' —  thev 
"will  he  justly  received  as  a  string  of  abstractions,  calculated 
only  to  do  mischief  " 

The  editor  said,  tliat  "it  was  a  thorough  conviction  that  the 
amendments  to  the  original  Alabama  resolutions  embraced 
principles  which  the  Convention,  on  proper  reflection,  and 
the  people  of  the  St;Up,  would  not  really  approve,"  &c  that 
led  him  to  discuss  the  matter.  "As  they  (the  original  resolu- 
tions reported  by  the  committee.)  orieinahy  stood,  they  wer« 
free  from  all  abstractions,  new  tests,  and  other  objections,  with 
which  the  amendments  are  chargeable."  "The  resolutions 
submitted  by  the  abb  committee  were .certainly  not  intended. 
to  throw  difficulty  in  the  way  of  either  aspirant,  and  had  no 
such  tendency." 

It  will  be  observed,  by  comparing  the  principles  laid  down 
by  my  amendment  with  those  laid  down  by  the  17th  and  18th 
resolutions  reported  by  the  "able  commttee,"  that  there  is 
not  the  shadow  even  of  a  difference  between  them,  as  far  as 
applicable  to  an  aspirant  for  the  Presidency  "  What  "diffi- 
culty" then  did  my  amendment  throw  "in  the  way  of  either 
aspirant  for  the  Presidency,"  not  thrown  there  by  the  "origi- 
nal resolutions"  of  "the  ablecomrmttee?"  Simply  this,  and  no 
more,  (and  it  tell?  the  tale  on  these  schemess) — the  resolu- 
tions of  the  "able  committee"  laid  down  sound  principles,  and 
announced  that  the  right  to  interfere  with  the  migration  of 
slaveholders  to  our  territories,  and  to  reside  there,  did  not 
"exist,  either  in  Congress  or  elsewhere"  but  they  expressly 
find  purposedly  refrained  from  imposing  those  sound  vieiL-s 
tip  n  the  delegates  as  instructions,  and  gave  them  "but  one 
special  instruction" — and  that  was  not  to  vote  for  any  one 
for  President  who  was  not  opposed  to  "all  claims  to  federal 
interference  with  slimes  in  the  territories  "  My  resolutions, 
in  fact,  as  far  as  the  Presidency  was  concerned,  only  made  the 
entire  resolutions  of  the  Committee  instructions  to  the  dele- 
gates— only  instructed  them  to  vote  for  no  man  who  did  not 
believe  that  the  power  to  prevent  our  citizens  from  migrating 


23 

tr>  the  territories,  with  their  slaves,  did  not  "exist,  either  in 
Congress,  or  elsewhere."  The  matter  ihpn,  thar  pinched  so 
hard,  and  made  "the  galled  jades  wince."  were  the  instruc- 
tions— not  the  principles  av«wedi  Those;  they  rare'!  not 
for,  as  Unig  as  they  were  riot  made  to  ploy  too  conspicuous 
a  part  in  restricting  them  in  selecting  a  President! 

The  editor  of  the  State  Gazette  and  "Giles"  called  lustily 
upon  "the  democratic  paper*  of  Alabama"  to  "republish"  the 
communications  of  the  latter.  What  said  the  democratic 
press? 

The  Montgomery '-Flag and  Ad  vertiser,"  one  of  wh-se  intel- 
ligent editors  was  chairman  of  the  Committee,  said — "Giles 
should  have  known  that  the  report  submitted  by  the  -able  com- 
mittee'fo  whom  he  refers,  embodied  resolutions  which  cover 
'he  whole  ground  of  the  9th  and  10th  resolutions  submitted  by 
Mr.  Yancey;" — ,fhe  ought  to  know,  further,  that  the  resolu- 
tions of  \!r.  Yancey  were  agreed  to,  hi  cause  they  were  un- 
derstood to  elaborate  merely  the  resolutions  submitted  byrhe 
committee."  The  editor  said  that  Giles  had  "fallen  into  a 
palpable  error,  in  supposing  that  Mr.  Yancey's  resolutions 
covered  something  which  is  obnoxious  to  censure,  and  which 
the  committee  and  the  Convention  would  have  repudiated." 
"If  there  beany  objection  to  the  9th  and  10th  resolutions  the 
objection  must  be  that  they  are  too  boll—  too  explicit  in  their 
declaration  of  Southern  rights  " 

The  Tuscaloosa  "Observer."  in  reply  to  the  positions  as- 
sumed by  i he  "State  Gazette"  and  "Giles,"  said — "It  is  ton 
plain  for  argument.  The  resolutions  (as  amended)  accorded 
strictly  with  the  Constitution,  in  spirit  and  letter;" — and  the 
editor,  went  into  a  spirited  defence  oi'  them,  and  of  the 
mover. 

The  "Democratic  Watchtower,"  April  10,  said — "A  com- 
munication, signed  'Giles,'  appeared  in  the  last  'State  Ga- 
zette,' with  the  endorsement  of  the  editor,  which  has  struck 
lis  with  some  astonishment.  It  is  nothing  less  than  an  effort 
to  absolve  the  delegates  to  the  Baltimore  Contention  from 
the  obligation  to  carry  out  the  will  of  the  democratic  party 
adopted  at  our  late  Convention.  What  evidence  is  there  for 
the  reckless  assertion,  that  some  were  designed  for  a  '■•trick" 
while  others  laid  down  cardinal  principles?  The  members 
were  men  of  intelligence,  of  tried  political  worth,  and  would 
not  so  far  forget  their  position,  as  to  vote  for  senseless  abstrac- 
irdas,  with  a  design  of  palming  a  trick,  upon  those  who  had 


entrusted  them  with  authority.  We  look  upon  the  attempt  of 
'Giles'  as  disorganizing,  and  it  is  the  duty  of  the  honest  demo- 
crats to  frown  ii  down. 

"It  is  nonsense  in  the  extreme,  unaccountable  to  those  who 
have  read  the  proceedings,  to  pretend  that  the  Convention 
desired  to  pledge  an  uninqni ring  acquiescence,  in  whatever 
might  be  the  action  of  the  Baltimore  Convention/7 

The  Democratic  Watchtower,  April  26,  said — "We  had  oc- 
casion, last  week,  to  make  some  strictures  upon  a  communi- 
cation, which  appeared  in  the  'State  Gazette.7  The  same 
writer,  cherishing  an  inveterate  propensity  for  errors  of  fact 
and  false  conclusions,  follows  his  first  batch  with  a  second, 
which  we  only  wonder  could  have  found  a  publisher  in  Ala- 
bama. 

"He  assumes,  that  the  territory  acquired  by  Mexico  must 
be  free.  ******** 

"Again,  with  the  same  recklessness,  and  forgetfulness  of 
facts,  while  exhibiting  his  northern  predilections,  and  anti- 
southern  feeling,  he  says  that  the.  South  is  -fearful  of  harmless 
factions/  and  by  inflammatory  action,  'has  done  the  institution 
of  slavery  more  harm  than  the  abolitionists  can  ever  do  it/ 
We  repeal  our  astonishment,  that  such  slanders  have  found  a 
press  to  publish,  and  a  tongue  to  approve, at  the  South.  Hith- 
erto it  has  been  our  proud  boast,  that  we  acted  on  the  defen- 
sive— that  the  North  has  ever  committed  the  first  aggression, 
and  we  only  asked  to  be  M  alone.  But  'Giles'  has  discover- 
ed that  we  are  worse  than  abolitionists — that  our  unmanly 
fears  and  premature  alarms  endanger  the  institution  we  most 
desire  to  protect.  Wise  man,  brave  man,  proud  in  his  own 
security!'7 

The  "Florence  Gazette77  said — "The  resolutions  adopted 
(by  the  Convention)  were  submitted  by  Messrs.  McCormick 
and  Yancey — the  latter  of  whom  is  well  known  throughout 
the  State,  as  the  able  representative  of  the  third  district  in  the 
last  Congress.  They  advance,  in  substance,  the  views  that 
have  been  so  ably  urged  upon  the  consideration  of  our  read- 
ers by  our  talented  correspondent "  IV."  in  relation  to  the  pro- 
hibition of  slavery  in  the  territories,7'  &c.  And  at  a  subse- 
quent day,  in  reviewing  the  character  of  the  electoral  ticket,, 
the  editor  said — "The  proceedings  of  the  Democratic  State 
Convention,  recently  held  at  Montgomery,  seem  to  have 
given  genera!  satisfaction  to  the  party  throughout  the  State — 
indeed  the  resolutions  of  the  Convention  seem  to  have  le- 


25 

ceived   the  commendation  of   our  friends   throughout   the 
country  " 

The  ''Dallas  Gazettee"  published  an  article,  from  which 
the  following  is  an  extract — "The  resolutions  in  regard  to  the 
slavery  question  have  elevated,  and  will  continue  to  elevate, 
the  party  in  the  just  estimation  of  the  great  public.  They 
take  the  true  and  safe  ground  upon  the  lion  question  of  the 
age — the  Wiltnot  proviso,"  &c. 

The  Augusta  (Geo.)  Constitutionalist,  said — "No  event  in 
the  political  movements  of  the  day  is  fraught  with  more  vital, 
importance,  than  the  passage  of  the  resolutions  of  the  late 
Alabama  Democratic  Convention.  They  are  of  great  intrin- 
sic importance ;  for  they  set  forth  the  true  Southern  position, 
in  a  bold,  clear,  and  decisive  manner.  They  are  of  practical 
importance,  and  will  lead  to  practical  results;  because  they 
will  be  sustained  by  the  people  of  the  South.  They  appeal 
directly  to  the  sense  of  jn-itice,  which  tells  any  Southern  man 
that  his  rights  are  .co-equal  with  those  of  a  citizen  of  a  free 
State  in  acquired  territory.  They  appeal  to  his  instincts  of 
self  preservation,  in  arousing  him  to  resist  any  attempt  to 
place  the  South  and  her  institutions  in  a  position  of  social  de- 
gradation, as  compared  with  the  rest  of  the  Union."  "If  the 
South  will  act  unitedly  and  promptly,  she  will  triumph  in  this 
struggle,  in  defiance  of  the  combined  forces  of  political  profli- 
gacy and  abolition  fanaticism." 

The  Macon  (Geo.)  Telegraph  said — "We  point  the  demo- 
cratic reader's  attention  to  the  resolutions  adopted  by  \h&- 
Alabama  State  Convention,  recently  held  at  Montgomery, 
which  will  be  found  in  another  column  of  to-day's  paper. 
These  resolutions  breathe  the  right  spirit.  They  speak  the 
language  of  a  proud  and  spirited  people,  who  understand  their 
rights  and  are  determined  to  maintain  them.  They  cannot 
be  t@o  generally  adopted,  nor  too  highlv  commended  by  the 
South,"  &c. 

The  South  Carolinian  said — (and  as  this  paper  is  now1 
freely  quoted  from  by  the  Cass-ites,  to  show  a  spark  of  prac- 
tical good  sense  in  South  Carolina,  I  trust  I  may  venture  to 
quote  it  as  authority) — "We  publish  below  the  resolutions  of 
the  Democratic  State  Convention  of  Alabama.  They  breathe 
the  true  spirit  of  Southern  democracy,  and  may  be  set  down 
as  the  rallying  principles  of  that  party  at  the  South.  We  seek 
no  alliances,  and  will  submit  to  no  compromise  for  the  sake 
of  party  on  the  question  of  slavery ,    We  will  never  occupy  a. 


20 

degraded  position  in  the  Union,  by  sn (faring  ourselves  and 
our  property  to  be  excluded*£rorn  territory  won  by  tho  com. 
m_0 a  valor  and  watered  by  the  common  blood  of  the  people 
of  all  the  States.  And  whether  this  is  to  be  effected  by  the 
vpen  and  undisguised  provisions  of  the  Wihnot  proviso,  or  by 
tho  more  dangerous  and  kisiduous,  but  equally  effectual 
method  of  allowing  the  Mexican  inhabitants  of  the  conquer- 
ed territory  to  retain  their  present  municipal  regulations,  and 
ihus  to  exclude  Southern  slaveholders  and  their  property,  is 
immaterial  to  the  South." 

In  fine,  if  a  single  press  in  Alabama  responded  favorably 
to  the  assaults  made  upon  >'thc  Alabama  pi  uform."  I  am  not 
aware  of  it;  while  the  Southern  Banner  (Athens,  Geo.)  was 
,;io  only  Southern  democratic  paper  out  of  the  State,  that  I 
*:on!d  learn,  took  a  similar  view  of*that  platform  with  fho 
''State  Gazette."  To  show  more  completely  how  universal 
was  the  approbation  given  to  these  resolutions,  and  the  con- 
demnation of  the  factious  course  of  that  .paper,  I  will  hero 
give  a  part  of  an  article,  devoted  to  my  hum.ble  self,  in  that 
.paper  of  1 9th  June,  1S-1S. 

"MR.  YANCEY. 

•'It  is  with  no  little  regret  that  we  feel  compelled,  by  the  duties  of  our 
position,  to  place  at  the  head  of  ail  article,  in  which  some  severity  of  ani- 
madversion is  designed,  the  name  of  a  gentleman  to  whom,  a  few  brief 
months  sinc£,  we  took  pleasure  in  frequently  alluding,  as  a  public  man 
and  a  democratic  of  acknowledged  abilities',  in  terms  of  warm  commenda- 
tion. Foreseeing  what  his  course  in  the  Alabama  Democratic  Convention 
w&uld  tikcessaHly  lead  to,  unless  disclaimed  by  the  democracy  of  the  State, 
we,  after  mature  reflection,  called  upon  the  party  to  repudiate  his  am°nd. 
ments.  which  the  Convention,  at  a  late  hour  of  the  night,  at  ihe  very  heel 
of  the  session,  and  under  an  erroneous  impression  as  to  their  real  tendency, 
permitted  to  pass  without  any  demonstration  of  open  opposition.  Instead 
of  obtaining  the  co-operation  of  our  contemporaries,  we,  with  few  excep- 
tions, received  nothing  for  our  pains  but  their  opposition  and  abuse-  Our 
motives  were  misrepresented  and  we  were  denounced  as  "disorganize^,"' 
when  we  expressly  stated  that  our  object  was  to  "prevent  disorganization 
hi  the  Baltimore  Convention,"  and  to  rescue  the  State  from  the  -'false  po- 
sition" which,  :n  our  judgment,  Mr.  Yancey's  amendments  placed  it,  x  hre 
has  now  proved  our  apprehensions  to  have  been  well  founded  and  fulfil- 
led all  our  predictions;  and  the  papers  that  then  condemned  us  have  aii 
now  suddenly  come  to  the  right-about  face,  and  are  crawling  out  as' fast 
as  possible  (as  we  predicted)  from  the  "awkward  position"  in  which  wa 
warned  them  they  were  placing  themselves." 

The  above  article  shows  two  facts. 

1st.  That  the  press,  "with  few  exception?/'"  sustained  my 
resolutions  and  the  acts  of  the  late  State  Convention,  and  dc- 


27 

nonnced  the  views  taken  of  both  by  the  "'State  Gazette"  and 
"Giles." 

2d.  That  the  '-State  Gazette"  still  maintains  the  same  po- 
sition, as  when  he  was  -'then  condemned;"  and  the  press 
which  condemned,  without  a  single  exception  I  believe  in 
this  State,  "have  suddenly  comb  to  the  right  aboui,"  and  the 
greater  number  are  now,  in  conjunction  with  "the  State  Ga- 
zette," heaping  upon  my  Head  loads  of  obliquy  and  invec- 
tive, which  nothing  hut  a  sense  of  being  right — a  conscious- 
ness thai  I  stand  now  upon  the  same  principles  which  wer  s 
once  pronounced  by  this  same  democratic  press  throughout 
the  State  to  be  sound,  and  in  accordance  with  the  spirit  and 
letter  of 'the  Constitution  could  •■uablo  rne  to  endure  with 
any  degre,e  of  equanimity  and  that,  if  I  have  erred,  it  has 
only  been  from  asserting  principles  which  one  of  them 
frankly  stated  could  oidy  be  said  to  be.  "too  bold  —  too  expli- 
cit in  their  declaration   of  Southern  rights  " 

A  review  of  these  facts  and  occurrences  will  establish  these 
conclusions. 

1st.  There  was  a  real,  palpable  danger  hovering  over  the 
South. 

2d.  That  our  fellow  cnizens.  without  distinction  of  par'}', 
in  their  primary  meetings,  and  in  their  legislatures,  denounc- 
ed those  who  were  advocating  the  doctrines  in  which  thy 
danger  lay,  and  pledged  themselves  to  voie  for  no  one  for  '.he 
Presidency  who  upheld  those  doctrines. 

3d.  That  the  Democracy  of  Alabama,  in  two  State  Con- 
ventions, and  by  their  representatives  in  the  General  Assem- 
bly, boldly  and  unequivocally  denounced  ail  interference 
with  the  right  of  our  fellow  citizens  io  migrate  to.  and  reside 
in,  the  territories  of  the  United  States,  as  unconstitutional  and 
subversive  of  that  equality  to  which  we  are  entitled  in  the 
Union — and  that,  as  an  "effective  mode"  of  maintaining  this 
right,  they  would  vote,  neither  in  a  National  Convention,  nor 
at  the  polls,  for  any  man  who  was  in  favor  of  the  right  of 
snch  interference. 

4th.  That  the  democratic  press  of  Alabama,  with  a  singu- 
lar degree  of  unanimity,  sustained  the  positions  thus  taken  by 
ttie  people  in  their  primary  assemblages,  and  by  the  demo- 
cracy in  its  Convention;  and  denounced  as  "disorganizer3° 
all  who  opposed  those  positions  and  acts. 

5th.  That  the  States  of  Virginia  and  Georgia,  in  their  le- 
gislatures, endorsed  these  positions;  and  the  democracy  of 


28 

Virginia  and  Florida,  m  their  State  Conventions,  boldly  sus- 
tained  them,  and  pledged  themselves  to  vote  for  no  one  for 
the  Presidency  who  opposed  them. 

Such  was  puhhc  sentiment,  when  I  startedfor — 

THE  BALTIMORE  CONVENTION. 

On  the  22d  May,  1S48,  the  Democratic  National  Conven- 
tion assembled  and  organized  at  Baltimore.  At  a  conference 
of  the. delegates  from  this  State,  it  was  agreed  that  the  vote 
of  each  congressional  district,  and  the  two.votes  from  the  State 
at  large,  should  be  cast  as  those  representing  each  of  said 
votes  should  judge  best. 

At  one  of  these  conferences,  an  attempt  was  made  to  get 
at  such  an  union  of  sentiment  as  would  produce  common  ac- 
tion on  the  vote  for  the  Presidency.  In  that  conference,  the 
following  facts  were  elicited. 

I  had  written  to  Gen.  Cass,  Mr.  Buchanan,  Mr.  Dallas,  and 
Judge  Woodbury,  inclosing  copies  of  the  resolutions  of  the 
State  Convention,  and  requesting  their  opinions  upon  the 
points  involved  Gen.  Cass  replied,  merely  enclosing  his 
letter  to  Mr.  Nicholson,  and  referring  me  to  it  for  his  views. 
Mr.  Dallas  replied,  that  "having,  on  several  occasions,  scru- 
pulously abstained  from  any  defence  or  elaboration  of  certain 
political  views  long  entertained  and  heretofore  publicly  ex- 
pressed, he  did  not  feel  at  liberty,  just  then,  to  pursue  a  dif- 
ferentcourse. "     Mr.  Buchanan  replied  thus: 

Washington,  May  18,  1848. 
Hon.  William  L.  Yancey: 

Sir. — I  have  received  your  favor  of  the  2nd  instant,  requesting  answers 
to  the  different  propositions  contained  in  the  9th,  10th,  1 1th.  12th,  13th 
and-  14th  Resolutions  of  the  late  Alabama  Democratic  Convention  on  the 
subject  of  slavery. 

On  the  26th  August  last,  after  much  reflection,  I  addressed  a  letter  to 
the  Democracy  of  Berks  County,  Penn.  on  this  important  and  exciting 
question,  in  which  I  expressed  a  strong  opinion  in  favor  of  the  extension 
of  the  Missouri  compromise  to  any  territory  which  we  might  acquire  from 
Mexico.  I  had  entertained  and  freely  expressed  this  opinion  trom  the 
time  the  question  was  first  agitated  ;  and  every  day's  experience,  since  the 
date  of  my  letter,  has  but  served  to  strengthen  my  conviction  that  the 
Missouri  compromise  is  the  best,  if  not  the  only  mode,  of  finally  and  satis- 
factorily adjusting  this  x-exed  and  dangerous  question. 

Under  these  circumstances,  I  cannot  abandon  the  position  which  I  have 
thus  deliberately  and  conscientiously  taken,  and  assume  any  other  that  can 
be  presented. 

I  have  the  honor  of  transmitting  you  a  copy  of  my  Berks  County'  letter. 

With  sentiments  of  the  highest  respect,  I  remain  vours,  sincerely. 

JAMES  BUCHANAN. 


Judge  Woodbury  replied  thus: 

Boston.  Mass.  15th  May.  1848. 

Dear  Sir, — On  my  arrival  here  to  hold  a  Court  to  day,  your  letter  of  the 
2nd  instant  was  placed  in  my  hands. 

It  has  not  hitherto  beer,  deemed  advisable,  by  fhe_  great  mass  of  my 
friends,  for  me  to  write  letters  for  publication  on  any  of  the  political  ques- 
tions, that  have  for  some  time  agitated  the  country. 

Two  reasons  have  existed  for  this,  which  still  remain  in  full  force.  One 
is,  that  my  views  are  already  well  known  to  most  people  on  these  questions, 
without  a  publication  of  them  in  this  mode.  And  the  other  is,  that  such  a 
publication,  and  especially  in  my  present  official  position,  and  on  constitu- 
tional points,  is  of  doubtful  propriety. 

In  connection  with  the  first  reason,  permit  me  to  remark,  that  it  will  be 
a  matter  of  lasting  regret,  if  any  of  my  friends  cannot  now  feel  satisfied 
what  are  my  constitutional  opinions,  when  they  have  been  made  known, 
on  so  many  occasions,  during  a  public  lite  of  more  than  a  quarter  of  a  cen- 
tury. When,  in  brief,  they  stand  on  record,  again  and  again,  unvarying,, 
as  the  opinions  which  belong  to  the  school  of  strict  construction,  and  as  the 
opinions  which  hold  firmly  to  all  the  compromises  of  the  Constitution;  and 
which  through  evil,  no  less  than  good  report,  have  always  led  me  earnestly 
to  vindicate  such  an  administration  of  the  Genera!  Government,  and  such 
a  support  of  our  sacred  Union  as  the  fraternal  spirit  which  formed  that 
Government  and  Union  seemed  to  demand. 

In  respect  to  the  application  of  these  principles  to  any  new  cases  or  new 
questions,  where  no  such  application  has  yet  been  required  from  me  in  the 
discharge  of  official  obligations,  the  second  reason  before  named  for  not 
going  into  speculative  discussions  on  such  topics  while  in  my  present  po- 
sition, still  does  not  leave  any'  persons,  desiring  information,  without  gen- 
eral guides  and  reasonable  assurances  as  to  my  future  course.  Thus  if  my 
public  life  hitherto  has  given  any  pledge  of  respect  to  the  reserved  rights  of 
th«  peopie  and  the  States,  and  of  fidelity  to  the  whole  Constitution  and  the 
whole  country,  it  furnishes  in  the  same  way,  it  is  believed,  the  strongest 
guarantee  of  what  will  be  done  hereafter  in  any  exigency  in  any  part  of  duty 
that  may  be  assigned  to  me. 

Unfortunately,  if  under  these  circumstances,  this  should  not  prove  satis- 
factory, I  must  despair  of  saying  any  thing  for  publication,  in  the  excite- 
ment of  the  present  canvass,  which  ought  to  be  more  satisfactory. 

Allow  me  to  add,  that  should  the  Democratic  National  Convention  adopt 
any  declaration  of  principles,  or  pass  any  resolutions  about  them,  which 
are  intended  as  their. platform,  or  a  guide  to  those  persons  recommended 
by  them  for  office,  I  certainly  would  not  permit  myself  to  be  their  candi- 
date for  any  situation,  unless  agreeing  in  the  correctness  of  those  principles. 

With  much  respect  and  regard,  your  obi  serv't. 

LEVI  WOOD3URY. 
To  Hon.  Wm.  L.  Yakcey,  Washington. 

After  the  receipt  of  those  letters,  however,  at  the  request  of 
a  portion  of  the  Alabama  delegation,  Mr.  Dallas  consented  to 
give  them  an  interview.  The  hour  being  late,  (the  adjourn- 
ment of  the  Senate)  I  alone,  of  the  delegation,  was  present  at 
it.     Mr.  Dallas,  in  a  full  and  frank  conversation,  such  as  he 


30 

would  cheerfully  hold  with  any  citizen  who  desired  to  leam 
his  political  views,  gave  me  to  understand,  (without  now  go- 
ing into  his  reasoning.)  that  he  was  opposed  to  all  interference 
by  Congress  with  slavery  in  the  territories,  and  that  the  peo- 
ple of  a  territory  could  derive  no  legislative  power  from  Con- 
gross  to  interfere  with  it  in  any  way  —that  the  territories  of 
the  United  States  were  open  to  emigration  from  the  whole 
Union.  At  a  previous  conversation  had  with  him,  as  we  were 
given  to  understand  by  Mr.  Solomon,  a  delegate  from  the 
Mobile  district,  Mr.  Dallas  advanced  the  same  views.  I  after- 
wards also  had  an  opportunity  of  reading  similar  sentimenls 
in  a  letter  written  by  Mr.  Dallas  to  a  gentleman  from  Penn- 
sylvania. 

The  following  singular  develope.ments  were  also  made  as 
to  Mr  Buchanan's  views.  One  of  the  two  Mr.  Moores,  I 
believef  Mr.  Sydenham  Moore,  was  understood  to  state,  that 
lie  had  met  Mr.  Buchanan,  on  Pennsylvania  Avenue,  who 
told  1  i i in  "he  had  written  a  reply  to  Mr.  Yancey's  letter" — 
that  Mr.  13.  raid  further,  "that  he  could  not  come  up  to,  c-r 
endorse,  the  Alabama  platform/' 

Mr.  San  ford  stated — that  he  had  held  an  interview  wi'.h 
Mr.  Buchanan,  and  that  Mr.  13.  amongst  other  things  "expres- 
sed surprise  to  find,  in  my  letter  to  the  editor  of  the  Slate  Ga- 
zette, that  I  had  put  such  a  construction  upon  his  views.  Mr. 
Sanford  said  that  Mr.  B.  in  that  interview,  fully  endorsed  the 
Alabama  platform — that  Mr.  B.  believed  Congress  iiad  no 
right  to  interfere  .with  slavery  in  the  States  and  territories. — 
and  that  the  inhabitants  of  a  territory  had  no  right  to  do  so, 
i! mil  they  met  in  Convention  to  form  a  State  Constitution  5/ 

1  stated,  that  previous  to  the  receipt  of  Mr.  B's  letter,  Mr. 
Buchanan  had  told  me  that  he  could  not  approve  of  the  views 
expressed  in  our  resolutions — that  he  had  taken  his  position 
on  the  Missouri  compromise,  and  could  not  now  change  it. 

There  was  also  this  additional  information  given  at  that 
conference  relative  to  the  opinions  of  Judge  Woodbury.  1 
lead  a  part  of  a  letter,  writteu  by  Judge  Woodbury's  son,  C. 
L.  Woodbury,  Esq.  in  Boston,  where  Judge  W.  then  was  hold- 
ing the  U.  S.  Circuit  Court,  and  after  a  conference  with  his 
father  upon  the  subject.  The  part  read  was  thus:  "There  is 
no  objection,  that  can  be  reasonably  made  to  you,  or  our 
friend  Yancej  and  others,  statmg  what  they  believe  to  be  the 
views  of  Judge  W.  on  the  subject,  (slavery) — such  as  Yan- 
cey's account  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Alabama  Convention* 


31 

for  instance,  in  the  Union."  That  account  I  believe  all  the 
delegation  had  seen,  and  I  re-stated  it  at  the  conference.  It 
was  as  foho\vs:  "I  read  extracts  from  a  letter  in  my  posses- 
sion, winch  I  averred  to  be  'reliable  authority,'  stating  Mr, 
Woodbury  to  be  opposed  to  both  Federal  and  popular  inter- 
ference with  slavery  in  the  territories;  and  that,  lie,  Mr, 
Woodbury,  believed  that  the  people  of  a  territory  could  only 
•  legislate  upon  the  subject  when  they  met  to  frame  a  State 
Constitution,  preparatory  to  admittance  as  a  State  into  this 
Union."  In  addition  to  the  above,  I  also  offered  to  read  to 
the  delegation  an  elaborate  argument  by  Judge  Woodbury  012 
that  nsiife,  which  had  been  written  in  January  last,  and  which 
J  was  authorized,  by  the  gentleman  who  had  handed  it  to  me, 
to  shew  to  any  gentleman  desirous  of  learning  what  were  any 
'unequivocal'  opinions  he  entertained  on  the 'slave  question, 
with  a  view  to  supporting  .him,  if  he  came  up  to  our  instruc- 
tions; but  that  no  one  could  read  it,  who  desired  to  do  so 
merely  to  make  a  blowing  horn  of  it  among  northern  men 
to  scare  them  from  the  support  of  Judge  Woodbury  in  that 
Convention.  That  if  nominated  there  was  no  doubt  thai; 
Judge  W.  would  at  once  make  public  avowals  of  his  opin- 
ions on  all  questions;  and  that  if  1  ot  nominated,  I  also  said, 
(Messrs.  Salomon  and  Winston  to  the  contrary  notwithstand- 
ing) that  every  one  who  read  that  letter  and  voted  for  him, 
would  be  authorized  to  refer  to  its  contents,  though  not  to 
publish  the  letter,  in  explanation  of  his  vote.  Some  of  the 
delegation  (these  gentlemen  who  voted  for  Mr.  Buchanan) 
refused  to  receive  the  letter  as  delegate's.  Others  (the  majo- 
rity) received  it — read  it — considered  it.  sufficiently  "unequi- 
vocal," and  cast  five  of  the  nine  votes  of  the  State  for  Judge 
Woodbury-  Those  gentlemen,  as  well  as  myself,  are  now 
arraigned  by  Salomon,  Winston,  Sanford  &  Co.  as  violators 
of  our  instructions  for  giving  those  votes  ! 

Mr.  Salomon  opens  the   ball,  and  says — "It  is  for  the  de- 


— -7.',  ~J       ~--~  J         » J     —  -»   v       .-,      .^-.         ...w       -^^ 

mocracv  of  Alabama  to  decide  whether  Judge  Woodbury 
could  be  voted  for  by  any  delegate,  who  regarded  as  binding 
this  resolution  adopted  by  the  Stale  Convention: 


will  not  unequivocally  a 
of  restricting 


uivocally  avow  themselves  to  be  opposed  to  either  of  the  fori 
u  slaucry  which  are  described  in  these  resolutions." 

"Did  Judge  Woodbury  'unequivocally  ayow  himself  op 


32 

posed  to  either  of  the  forms  of  restricting  slavery/  &c.  If  so, 
where  is  that  avowal  to  be  found?  Where  is  the  public  justi- 
fication for  the  votes  that  were  recorded  in  his  favor  from 
Alabama?" 

If  Mr.  Salomon  had  read  the  letter  offered  to  him,  he 
would  have"  been  sufficiently  well  informed  not  to  have 
sought  elsewhere  for  the  information  he  asks:  he  would 
have  been  enabled  to  answer  that  Judge  W.  was  "unequivo-* 
cally"  opposed  to  both  forms  of  restricting  slavery:  he  could 
have  even  shown  where  that  avowal  was  to  be  found  :  and, 
if  he  can  understand  the  resolution- he  has  quoted,  he  can  see 
that  a  '-public  justification"  was  not  required  by  it  for  votes 
cast  in  Convention. 

I  will  ask  some  questions,  also.  Why  did  Salomon,  Win- 
ston and  Sanford  suppress  the  fact,  that  Mr.  C.  L.  Woodbury, 
in  the  name  and  by  the  authority  of  Judge  Woodbury,  indors- 
ed the  publication  of  the  views  of  the  latter  by  me  in  my  let- 
ter to  the  editor  of  the  State  Gazette?  Why  did  Winston, 
Salomon  and  Sanford  suppress  the  fact,  that  at  the  conference 
*  of  the  delegates,  it  was  also  in  evidence  before  the  delegates, 
that  Mr.  Buchanan  had,  on  two  different  occasions,  to  two 
of  the  delegates,  expressly  said  that  he  could  not  endorse 
or  adopt  the  principles  of  the  Alabama  platform;  and  that  all 
that  could  be  said  in  reply  by  one  of  his  friends  (if  remember- 
ed aright,  Mr.  Winston)  was — "perhaps  he  don't  put  the  same 
construction  upon  it  that  you  do."?  Why  has  Mr  Sanford  in 
his  address  endeavored  to  palm  off  upon  the  public  that  the 
delegates  were  instructed  to  vote  in  Convention  for  no  "can- 
didate, for  President  or  Vice  President  who  was  not  openly 
and  avoivedly  opposed  to  the  restriction  upon  slavery-,"  &c? 
His  colleague,  Mr.  Salomon,  has  published  the  resolution  of 
instruction  to  the  delegates,  and  that  is — that  we  vote  for  no 
men  "who  \\  ill  not  unequivocally  avow  themselves,  &.c" 
The  resolution  as  to  voting  against  any  who  ''shall  not  openly 
and  avowedly  be  opposed,"  &c.  relates  solely  to  our  action  in 
the  canvass  after  the  nomination,  if  it  should  prove  to  be  bad. 

Mr.  Salomon  with  less  of  cunning,  but  more  frankness 
(however  little  intended)  has  placed  ''the  guide"  to  the  votes 
of  delegates  in  the  prope.  resolution;  but  Messrs.  Winston 
and  Sanford  differ  with  him,  and  attempt  their  attack  from 
Lolder,  though  less  tenable  grounds. 

They,  Messrs.  Winston  and  Sanford,  it  seems,  are  so  hard 
pressed  for  want  of  materiel  with  which  to  crush  me,  that  ./or 


•       33 

that  purpose  they  are  disposed  to  regard  the  Alabama  reso- 
lutions as  binding  upon  the  delegates  !  What  a  pity  this  idea 
never  entered  their  heads  when  a  matter  of  far  greater  im- 
portance was  before  them — the  nomination  of  a  President ! 
For  this  purpose  then,  they  quote  the  13th  and  14th  resolu- 
tions, as  binding  upon  the  delegates  in  voting  in  convention 
to  make  a  nomination.  It  will  be  observed  that  the  14th  makes 
"  these  resolutions"  (to  wit,  the  whole  series)  "  instructions  to 
our  delegates  to  guide  them  in  their  votes  in  that  body  ;  and 
that  they  vote  for  no  men  for  President  or  Vice  President 
who  will  not  unequivocally  avow  themselves,  fyc."  What  is 
the  plain  meaning  of  that  resolution  ?  Clearly  this, — the  prin- 
ciples laid  down  in  the  previous  resolutions  shall  "  be  consi: 
dered  as  instructions  to  guide  them  in  their  votes  in  that 
body" — (the  Convention) — and  in  reference  to  those  princi- 
ples— the  resolution  emphatically  binds  the  delegates  to  vote 
for  no  one  "  who  will  noi. unequivocally  avow  himself,  &c." 
The  13th  resolution  was  designed,  and  that  design  is  plain 
upon  its  face,  to  bind,  not  the  delegates,  for  their  names  or 
office  are  not  alluded  to  even  by  implication  in  it — but  was  de- 
signed, as  it  reads,  to  bind  "  the  Convention"  as  a  body,  and 
■'•'  its  members"  individually,  by  a  pledge  ic  under  no  politi- 
cal necessity  whatever,  to  support  for  the  office  of  President 
or  Vice  President  any  person  who  shall  not  openly  and 
avowedly  be  opposed,  &c." 

It  is  clear  then  that  by  the  13th  resolution  "the  Conven- 
tion" as  a  body  and  "its  members"  individually  pledged 
themselves  to  the  country  and  to  each  other  not  to  support  a 
bad  nomination  at  the  polls  or  in  the  canvass  ! — and  that  by 
the  14th  the  delegates  were  bound  not  to  vote,  in  the  Balti- 
more Convention,  to  nominate  any  one  who  did  not  "unequi- 
.  vocally"  avow  himself  to  be  in  favor  of'-'  rhose  resolutions." 

The  Convention  recognized  two  stages  or  periods  at  which 
those  resolutions  were  to  be  considered  as  solemn  pledges — 
1st  in  the  Baltimore  Convention,  on  the  delegates — 2d,  in  the 
canvass  and  at  the  polls,  on  the  members  of  the  State  Con- 
vention. 

The  difference  between  Messrs.  Salomon,  Winston,  San- 
ford,  &  Co.  and  myself  then,  in  reference  to  these  two  resolu- 
tions, is  simply  this — they  obeyed  neither  in  the  Convention 
and  are  obeying  neither,  in  the  canvass. — I  strictly  followed 
the  14th  resolution  i'n  the  Convention,  and.  am  now  obeying 
the  13th  in  the  canvass.     The  only  use  to  which  they  have 

c 


34 

Lave  ever  put  them  is  to  pervert  their  meaning,. in  order  taft 
assail  me.  I  have  acted  npon  them  in  my  vote  as  a  dele- 
gate, and  will  do  so  in  the  Canvass  as  a  citizen. 

Again,  the  14th  resolution  made  the  whole  series  of  the 
resolutions  adopted  "  a  guide"  merely  to  our  votes  in  the 
Convention — that  is,  left  us  to  choose  the  man  who  came 
nearest  to  us  on  all  such  issues  as  Tariff,  Bank,  Internal  Im- 
provements and  War.questions.  Will  it  be  contended  that  we 
could  vote  for  no  one  who  did  not  come  up  fully  to  all  these 
positions?  If  so,  how  can  these  gentlemen  excuse  their  vote 
for  Buchanan,  whose  single  vote  enacted  the  Whig  Tariff  of 
1S42?  or  for  Cass, who  voted  for  the  Internal  Improvement  bills 
vetoed  by  Mr.  Polk  ?  If  theirs  is  the  proper  construction  tney 
are  in  a  bad  dilemma  !  Bu*t  this  is  not  the  construction.  The 
resolutions  made  all  those  principles  "  a  guide"  to  us,  leaving 
us  to  get  one  as  near  to  us  as  we  could  ;  but  on  the  slave  ques- 
tion, it  left  us  no  discretion,  for  it  went  on  to  say  in  addition — ■ 
v  and  that  we  vote  for  no  men  for  President  or  Vice  President 
who  will  not  unequivocally  avow  themselves  to  be  opposed  to 
either  of  the  forms  of  restricting  slavery  mentioned  in  the 
resolutions." 

We  were  thus  told,  that  while  we  must  be  guided  by  all 
those  resolutions  in  our  selection  of  a  candidate,  yet  we  musi. 
make  it  the  main  point — "-to  vote  for  tio  men  who  will  not 
unequivocally"  avow  themselves  on  the  slavery  issue  to  be 
with  us.  We  were  in  elfect  told,  that  if  we  found  one,  not 
altogether  sound  on  other  issues,  yet  sound  on  this  one  issue,, 
to  take  him — and*  this  is  the  only  construction  under  which 
the  delegation  could  have  made  such  a  choice. 

The  resolutions  again  recognized  the  difficulty  of  finding 
one  fully  up  to  the  mark  with  us  on  the  slave  issue,  in  print— 
and  while  they  permited  us  to  vote  for  such  an  one  in  conven- 
tion, they  demanded  of  such  a  nominee,  before  we  voted  at 
the  polls,  to  avow  himself  "openly."  It  was  known  that 
Woodbury  was  our  choice  and  that  he  was  a  judge  on  the 
bench.  We  had  severely  condemned  McLean  for  publish- 
ing political  letters  to  get  the  Whig  nomination,  and  we  did 
not  expect  our  favorite  to  do  so.  But  though  satisfied  to 
nominate  him,  if  he  gave  to  the  delegates  i4  unequivocal" 
assurances  of  his  soundness,  we  felt  bound  to  declare  that 
"  under  no  political"  necessity  whatever  would  we  vote  at 
the  polls- for  any  man  who  "did  not  openly  and  avowedly" 
come  out  on  our  side.     If  he  had  been  nominated  therefore, 


35- 

Jiidge  Woodbury  to  get  our  support  would  have  been  confo 
pelled  to  publish  his  opinions. 

Mr.  Sanford  in  his  address,  expects  to  sustain  his  argu- 
ment by  alledged  isolated  remarks  of  mine.  I  never  did  say 
in  the  State  Convention  that  Mr.  Woodbury's  views  would, 
be  published  to  the  world,  before,  the  Convention  met.  I  had; 
then  in  possession  a  letter  shewing  the  impropriety  of  his 
doing  so,  while  a  Judge  of  the  Supreme  Court.  If  I- said 
anything  about  publishing,  it  was  that  "at  the  proper,  ti??ie,:> 
those  views  would  be  made  public  ;  for  I  could  only  have 
stated  what  I  knew  to  be  Judge.  W.'s  views — and  that  was  : 
that  if  nominated,  he  would  be  in  a  condition  to  make  pub- 
lic his  views  without  impropriety.     * 

In  his  address,  in  order  to  convict  me  of  personal  inconsis- 
tency Mr.  S.  says,  "  in  reply  to  my  remark,  that  unless  Mr.W. 
was  open  and  explicit  in  his  avowal  of  hostility  to  both  feder- 
al and  popular  interference  with  slavery  in  the  territories,  we. 
were  forbidden  to  support  him,  Mr.  Yancy  answered  '  cer- 
tainly: and  in  that  event  we  must  look  farther.'  " 

My  own  recollection  of  that  conversation  is,  that  I  said, 
i4  unless  I  received  something  more  satisfactory  relative  to 
his  opinions  I  sshould.  look  farther."  I  did  in  fact,  on  the 
very  next  day,  receive  the  two  letters,  which  I  laid  before 
the  delegates  ! 

Why  has  Mr.  Sanford  endeavored  to  lug  in  the  name  of 
C.  M.  Jackson. as  an  aider  and  abetter  in  this  attempt  to  throw 
the  vote  of  the  State  to  Buchanan  ? — when  it  is  a  fact  that  C. 
M.  Jackson  voted  against  Buchanan  upon  every  vote  given  ; 
first  voting  for  Dallas  and  afterwards  for  Woodbury,  though 
overruled  by  his  delegation,  each  time. 

Why  also  is  Mr.  Sanford  making  this  violent  attack: 
upon  me, for  not  sustaining  Gen.  Cass  ? — when  in  Washington 
long  after  the  nomination  was  made,  and  on  the  last  day  we 
passed  together  there  on  my  return  south,  he  told  me,  in  the 
reading-room  of  Coleman's  Hotel,  with  no  asseveration, 
of  secrecy,  that  he  would  sell  his  Press.,  in  Mobile  at  a 
a  great  sacrifice,  if  he  could  get  an  offer,  to  avoid  support- 
ing Gen.  Cass — that  he  knew  the  up-hill  work  which  it  would 
entail  upon  him  to  do  so — that  it  was.  the  worst  nomination 
that  could  have  been  made — that  he  knew  the  men  who  were 
around  him  in  Mobile  that  would  oppose  it — that  to  support 
the  nomination  he  would,  have  to  fly  in  the  face  of  long 
cherished  principles,  both,  on  the  slave  question   and   the 


36 

money  power  of  the  government !  Language  which  I  there 
learned  Mr.  Sanford  had  uttered  to  others  also.  What 
li  change  has  come  o'er  the  spirit  of  his  dream  ?  " 

The  answer  might  possibly  be  found  in  the  old  adage — 
li  like  master,  like  man."  Gen.  Cass  has  ingeniously  con- 
fessed to  "«a  change,"  somewhat  similar,  having  been 
wrought  in  his  own  mind,  as  one  became  evident  in  that  of 
the  sovreign  public — that  public  that  was  so-soon  to  act  in 
conclave  upon  a  nomination  for  the  Presidency.  Now 
"  Giles" — that  noted  correspondent  of  the  "  State  Gazette," 
who  so  vehemently  upheld  the  pretensions  of  Buchanan 
before  the  nomination  [and  now  as  vehemently  upholds  those 
of  Gen.  Cass  !j  after  a  Galm  review  of  the  various  positions 
of  Gen.  Cass,  it  is  presumed,  pronounced  him  to  have  been 
actuated,  as  was  "  too  evident"  he  said,in  making  this  change, 
"  with  a  hungry  ambition."  That  hunger,  doubtless,  has 
since  been  greatly  appeased  by  the  nomination  being  given  to 
him. 

Might  our  friend  Sanford  have  been  in  any  degree  at  that 
time  a  hungry  "  expectant  of  place  ?  "  Could  it  be  that  it 
was  considered  wise  to  invest  a  little  impracticability  in  the 
speculation?  [a  bold  game  to  be  sure — but  then  somewhat 
of  success  had  attended  it  in  the  person  of  one  of  his  parti- 
cular friends.]  I  do  not  charge  that  such  is  the  case  with  the 
editor  of  the  Register;  for  I  believe  he  is  now  considered  as 
one  of  the  best  satisfied  men  in  Alabama.  Unlike  his  great 
friend  Gen.  Cass,  he  does  not  live  in  expectancy  ;  as  we  are 
informed  by  his  Cass  brother,  the  editor  of  the  State  Gazette, 
who  in  a  recent  number  says — "  We  rejoice  to  learn  that  the 
senior  editor  of  the  Mobile  Register  and  Journal  has  been 
appointed  to  a  lucrative  office  under  the  General  Govern- 
ment." 

But  I  would  ask  Mr.  Sanford,  if  he  entertains  the  views 
of  our  instructions  embodied  in  the  following  extract  from 
his  address,  where  are  the  evidences  that  Mr.  Buchanan  was 
"  openly  and  avowedlv  opposed  to  the  restriction  of  slavery. 
&c"? 

.  "  The  amendments  to  the  report  of  the  committee  on  resolutions  in  the 
Alabama  convention  proposed  by  Mr.  Yancy,  and  adopted  by  the  conven- 
tion, prohibited  its  delegates  from  casting  their  votes  in  favor  of  any  can- 
didate for  President  or  Vice  President  who  was  not  openly  and  avowedly 
opposed  to  the  restriction  of  slavery  in  the  territories  either  by  federal  or 
popular  authority." 


As  he  charges  those  who  voted  for  Woodbury  with  violat- 
ing their  instructions,  and  claims  the  merit  of  observing  them 
for  those  who  voted  for  Buchanan,  I  will  extract  from  his 
address  the  main  item  of  proof  upon  whrch  he  rests  it  : 

"  Happening  to  meet  Mr.  Buchanan  at  the  President's  levee  on  Friday 
evening.  I  called  his  attention  to  this  letter,  and  asked  him  if  he  intended 
to  be  understood  as  claiming  that  the  population  of  a  territory  in  an  un- 
organized capacity  had  the  right  to  control  the  question  of  slavery  in  such 
territory.  He  declaimed  that  no  such  idea  had  ever  been  entertained  by 
him — that  the  construction  put  upon  his  language  by  Mr.  Yancy  was  a 
perversion  of  its  plain  and  obvious  meaning — that  in  his  opinion  the  in- 
habitants of  a  territory,  as  such,  had  no  political  rights,  that  they  had  no 
power  whatever  over  the  subject  of  slavery — and  that  they  could  neither 
interdict  nor  establish  it,  except  when  assembled  in  convention  to  form  a 
State  constitution.  He  further  authorized  and  requested  me  to  make  any 
public  use  of  these  declarations  that  I  might  think  proper  to  correct  any 
impression  which  Mr.  Yancy's  construction  of  his  language  in  the  Berks 
letter  might  have,  made." 

If  the  reader  will  remember  that  but  a  day  before  this 
alledged  conversation  Mr.  Buchanan  had  written  the  letter 
published  on  page  28  of  this  address,  in  reply  to  one  request- 
ing his  opinion  upon  the  principles  embodied  in  the  Alabama 
resolutions,  and  which  he  knew  was  to  be  laid  before  the 
delegation — in  which  letter  Mr.  B.  deliberately  refuses  to 
abandon  his  former  position  to  assume  any  other  thatmight 
be  presented,  and  in  which  he  had  a  fair  opportunity  of  cor- 
recting any  wrong  construction  put  upon  the  Berks  letter  by 
me,  but  in  which  he  does  not  even  allude  to  such  a  thing  ; 
and  will  also  bear  in  mind,  that  in  separate  and  distinct  con- 
versations, with  Mr.  Moore  and  myself  fcin  the  same  week, 
Mr.  B.  expressly  refused  to  assume  the  Alabama  position  •; 
and  then  compare  that  letter  and  his  Berks  letter,  and  those 
conversations,  with  the  above  statement  of  Mr.  Sanford,  he 
will  conclude  that  an  unworthy,  dishonest,  double-dealing 
game  was  played  upon  the  delegation,  either  by  Mr.  Buchanan 
or  Mr.  Sanford.  The  letter  written  by  Mr.  B.  is  in  full  ac- 
cordance with  the  Berks  letter  and  with  the  conversations 
held  with  Mr.  Moore  and  myself,  but  they  all  are  opposed  to 
the  statement  of  Mr.  Sanford. 

Let  the  reader  remember  too  that  the  editor  of  the  "Union'-'' 
had  but  a  week  previously  published  my"  letter"  containing 
the  construction  which  I  put  upon  Mr.  B.'s  views,  and  that 
neither  Mr.  Ritchie  nor  Mr.  B.  accompanied  it  with  any  dis- 
avowal of  that  construction;  and  that  Mr.  B.  was  a  candi- 
date for   the   Presidency,  and  that  such  a.  publication,  unan- 


'3;S 

'swered  or  explained,  would  be  taken  to  be  the  true  one  by  aft 
the  delegates  to  the  Baltimore  Convention,  and  it  will  aid 
him  still  farther  to  come  to  a  correct  conclusion  as  to  the  cha- 
racter of  the  game  attempled  to  be  secretly  played  off  upon 
the  Alabama  delegaton. 

For  one,  entertaining  for  Mr.  Buchanan  a  high  personal  re- 
spect I  deeply  regret  that  the  singular  course  of  one  of  his 
political  friends  should  have  made  it  necessary  in  me  to  place 
him  [Mr.  B.]  even  seemingly  in  a  doubtful  attitude  before  the 
public. 

But  is  it  true  that  Mr.  B.  did  say  to  Mr.  Sanford,  What  is 
attributed  to  him  in  the  above  quotation  ?  Did  not  Mr.  S. 
really  jump  to  conclusions  desirable  to  him;  and  in  fact  have 
no  solid  ground  upon  which  he  could  really  have  reached 
them?  I  think  he  did;  and  submit  to  the  intelligent  reader 
if  the  same  conclusion  cannot  be  drawn  from  Mr.  Sanford's 
account  of  that  interview  between  Mr.  B.  and  himself,  given 
at  the  conference  of  the  Alabama  delegates.  I  extract  from 
the  address  of  Mr.  Sanford — 

"I  urged  upon  the  delegates  the  conviction  impressed  upon  my  mind 
that  in  placing  himself  upon  the  principles  of  the  Missouri  Compromise 
and  leaving  the  subject  of  slavery  below  thirty-six  and  a  half  degrees  of 
north  latitude,  untouched  by  either  federal  or  popular  authority,  he  was  to 
all  practical  purposes  within  the  scope  and  spirit  of  our  resolutions." 

Here  then  -is  'the  key-^-at  least  the  only  key  yet  found, 
which  will  relieve  Mr.  B.  from  the  "durance  vile"  in  which 
Mr.  S.  has  placed  him.  Mr.  Sanford  himself  sums  up  the 
views  of  Mr.  B.  and  himself  locates  that  statesman  on  the 
Missouri  Compromise!  Mr.  Sanford,  after  relating  to  the 
delegates  how  Mr.  B.  agreed  with  us  that  nei'her  Congress. 
nor  the  inhabitants  of  a  territory, had  any  "power  whatever 
over  the  subject  of  slavery,  and  that  they  could  neither  inter- 
dict nor  establish  it  except  whan  assembled  in  convention  to 
form  a  state  constitution,"  still  "urged  Upon  the  delegates," 
that  Mr.  B.  would  only  permit  those  sound  constitutional 
views  to  operate  between  32°  30'  and  3G°  30'— and  that  Mr. 
B.  "  was  to  all  practical  purposes,  witfiin  the  scope  and  spirit 
.  of  our  resolution?,"  though  in  favor  of  Congress  passing  a 
proviso  that  north  of  36°  30',  that  is  between  36°  30'  and  49° 
a  breadth  of  12°  30'.  slavery  should  be  forever  excluded! 
The  latter  views  thus  summed  up  by  Mr.  S.  are  the  true  and 
:oft  expressed  *iews  of  Mr.  B.  to  be  found  in  his  Berks  letter 
and  his  letter  to  me,  and  in  his  conversations  with  Mr.  Moore 


39 

-and  myself;  and  are  all  in  the  very  teeth  of  the  conversation 
ailedged  by  Mr.  S.  to  have  been  held  between  Mr.  B.  and 
himself  at  the  President's  levee  ! 

Now  I  freely  admit  that  Mr.  B.  has  '-'placed  himself  upon 
the  principles  of  the  Missouri  Compromise,"  which  forever 
excludes  slavery,  by  an  act  of  Congress,  from  all  territory 
north  of  36°  30';  but  I  ask  Mr.  S.  in  what  line  of  our  instruc- 
tions will  he  find  the  delegates  authorized  to  vote  for  one  fer 
President  who  was  in  favor  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  ? 
;  In  what  line  will  he  find  a  direction  to  the  delegates  to  vote 
for  one  who  believed  that  Congress  could,  by  act  or  otherwise, 
exclude  slavery  from  a  foot  of  our  territory  ?  In  what  line 
is  the  "spirit"  breathed,  that  nut  of  a  territory  of  the  United 
States  running  on  the  Pacific  from  32°  30'  to  49°,  it  would' be 
just,  or  constitutional  to  exclude  slavery  "  for  ever"  by  act  of 
Congress,  from  12°  30'  of  it ;  and  leave  it  an  open  question  in 
the  4°  south  of  that  line,  whether  free  or  slave  holding  states 
should  be  formed  out  of  it? 

Refer  to  the  "Platform"  Mr.  Sanford — you  have  a  paper 
at  your  service  and  a  cute  and  pliant  editorial  colleague. 
Both  may  try  your  ingenuity  upon  this  proposition ;  and 
when  you  succeed  in  perverting  the  language  and  the  mean- 
ing of  that  Platform  into  an  endorsement  of  the  Missouri 
Compromise,  as  one  of  the  principles  which  were  to  guide 
the  delegates  in  their  votes  for  President,  you  will  be  each 
fully  entitled  to  bear  the  appellation  of  "The  Prince  of  Art- 
ful Dodgers." 

The  "second"  in  this  sweet  band  of  choristers  says  with 
^i'ea.1  naive f te  : 

'■'■  We  make  no  objection  to  the  fact  that  Mr.  W.  was  nominated  in  the 
.  convention  by  an  open  ai.d  avowed  abolitionist  and  to  the  support  he  re- 
ceived from  the  New  England  States  ;  yet  under  all  the  circumstances  Mr. 
■  Yancy  was  singularly  associated." 

Oh  no  ! — certainly  not.  It  would  be  a  strange  objection  to 
ha  made  by  a  man  who  now  stands  on  a  platform  recognized 
to  be  "sound"  on  this  issue  by  the  Barnburners — who 
ratified  the  Cass  nomination  in  conjunction  with  every  north- 
ern Abolitionist  in  that  body — and  whose  voice  was  raised  to 
make  it  unanimous,  and  to  drown  that  of  the  State  of  Alaba- 
ma's speaking  through  her  instructions,  with  that  of  this 
■very  "open  and  avowed  Abolitionist ;" — and  who  is  now 
working  to  palm  off  that  nomination  upon  the  South,  side  by 


40 

side,  with  that  very  Abolitionist  and  all   his  colleagues  from 
those  very  "  New  England  States  !  " 

Certainly  Mr.  J.  A.  Winston,  even  '•  though,  born  and 
raised"  here  as  he  is  pleased  to  inform  us,  will  not  make  any 
such  objection,  while  he  is  a  co-worker  to  advance  the  inter- 
est of  Gen.  Cass  with  those  who.  "  pull  the  wires"  for  the 
General,  and  who  have  stooped  so  low  as  to  send  a  mission 
of  members  of  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  to  the  great 
State  of  New  York  "  to  beg  those  ultra  Jac.tionists  of  the 
North,''  the  Barnburners,  not  to  disturb  "  the  harmony  of 
the  Party" — and  who  are  straining  every  nerve  to  excommu- 
nicate  as"  ultra  jactionists  of  the  South"  all  who  dare  stand 
up  for  the  very  land  he  was  "born  and  raised"  in,  against 
those  very  Barnburners  and  their  ivould-be  Cass  allies  !  I 
think  I  may  be  allowed  to  say,  that  Mr.  Winston,  "  is  singu-- 
larly  associated,"  and  would  be  more  so,  if  he  could  ! 

It  being  understood  that  the  vote  of  the  State  would  be  di- 
vided— and  it  being  considered  "by  some  very  desirable  that 
the  vote  should  be  unanimous,  in  order  to  be  effective,  a 
proposition  was  made  that  the  friends  of  Mr.  Woodbury 
would  vote  for  Mr.  Dallas,  if  the  friends  of  Mr.  Buchanan 
would  do  so — there  being  no  controversy  as  to  the  views  of 
Mr.  Dallas — and  our  instructions  allowing  us  to  vote  for  him. 
All  the  Woodbury  men  and  some  of  the  Buchanan  men  were 
ready  to  do  this,  but  the  delegates  who  controlled  the  vote  of 
the  Huntsville  district,  and  of  the  Dallas  district  refused. 
One  delegate,  Mr.  A.  J.  Soffold,  was  understood  to  object  to 
doing  so,  "  ch i efly  for  the  reason,  that  I  [he]  thought  there 
was  a  better  prospect  of  getting  Col.  King  nominated  on  a 
ticket  with  him  [Mr.  Buchanan]  than  with  any  of  the  rest," 
though  stating  at  the  same  time  that — "  I  [he]  had  no  ob- 
jection to  urge  Mr.  Dallas" — but  that  for  the  reasons  men- 
tioned I  [he]  could  not  consent  to  the  proposed  arrangement." 
As  this  is  a  delicate  and  grave  matter,  and  Mr.  A.  J.  Saffold 
particularly  sensitive  as  to  the  precise  words  in  which  his 
thoughts  shall  go  before  the  public  and  to  the  conclusions  to 
be  drawn  from  them,  I  have  given  his  own  language. 

This  proposition  failed  therefore  :  and  one  of  the  reasons 
advanced  for  it  will  tend  to  throw  some  light  upon  the  cha- 
racter of  those  secret  springs  which  controlled  the  Baltimore 
Convention,  and  which  led  to  an  abandonment  of  the  true 
interests  of  the  South  in  the  nomination  which  was  after- 
wards made. 


41 

The  statements  of  Mr.  Salomon  and  Mr.  J.  A.  Winston  as 
to  his  matter  can  be  appropriately  noticed  here.  They  both 
setup  a  man  of  straw,  and  with  great  coolness  and  self-pos- 
session knock  it  down.  Mr.  Salomon  says:  "  It  [my 
minority  resolution]  was  voted  down  by  the  South,  and  when 
Mr.  Yancey  asserts  that  the  delegation  from  Alabama  was 
influenced  in  its  final  vote  on  the  platform  of  principles  by  a 
desire  to  secure  a  nomination  of  one  of  her  sons,  as  vice  Pre- 
sident, to  use  a  mild  Perm,  he  must  have  forgotten  that  the 
voting  on  the  resolutions  did  not  take  place  until  theday  after 
the  nomination  for  President  and  Vice  President  had  been 
made,  and'therefore  there  could  not  have  been  any  influence 
of  the  character  he  describes.'* 

Mr.  J.  A.  Winston  says — "Mr.  Y.  accuses  us,  with  nearly 
all  the  South,  of  sacrificing  our  rights  for  the  Vice  Presidency, 
forgetting  in  his  zeal  of  censure  that  the  resolutions  adopted 
by  the  convention  did  not  come  up  for  consideration  until  alter 
the  nomination  for  Vice  President  had  been  made." 

These  persons  will  find  that  I  have  not  "forgotten"  as 
much  of  these  proceedings  as  it  appears  convenient  to  them, 
either  to  forget  or  to  suppress  :  for  instance  I  have  not  forgot- 
ten that  these  gentlemen  and  the  entire  delegation  voted  for 
my  minority  resolution  !  A  full  relation  of  all  the  facts,  it 
does  not  seem  to  have  entered  their  heads,  was  at  all  neces- 
sary to  the  making  up  a  correct  judgment,  in  the  premises,  by 
The  public— and  it  so  happens  that  the  facts  "  forgotten"  or 
suppressed  by  them,  are  those  most  likely  to  shield  me  from 
the  verdict  of  being  a  (i  traitor,"  and  most  calculated  to  in- 
duce such  a  verdict  against  them. 

Preferring  that  men,  so  much  interested  as  are  Messrs. 
Salomon  &  Winston  in  the  result,  should  not  state  my  case, 
I  will  do  it  for  myself.  All  that  I  have  said  on  this  point  is 
the  following  at  Charleston—"  There  were  delegates  even 
from  Alabama,  who  made  the  Vice  Presidency  paramount  to 
the  Presidency,  and  held  both  paramount  to  their  instruc- 
tions— in  fact  that  a  nomination  was  heM  by  perhaps  a  ma- 
jority of  the  South  as  of  more  importance  than  any  guarran- 
tee  of  principles." 

The  first  part  of  this  statement  is  admitted  to  be  true  by 
at  least  one.  The  fact  that  four  votes  were  given  to  Buch- 
anan, and  that  all  the  delegates  but  three  pledged  the  vote  of 
Alabama  to  Gen.  Cass.before  the  Convention  had  declared  its 
platform,  contrary  to  our  instructions,  and  in  which  act  of 


4'2 

treason  to  those  instructions  Mr.  J,  A.  Winston  led  the  way, 
proves  the  second  branch  of  it  to  be  true — and  that  the  third 
is  true  is  made  conclusive  by  the  ratification  of  the  nomina- 
tion of  Gen.  Cass,  and  the  refusal  of  the  convention  to  adopt 
a  resolution  embodying  the  true  Southern  creed,  by  a  vote  of 
36  to.  2 16. 

The  matter  is  again  alluded  to  in  remarks  made  by  me  at 
Wetumpka.  There  I  said — "  that  the  Convention  findingthe 
South  entering  eagerly  into  the  Vice  Presidential  scramble, 
.  took  advantage  of  it  to  snatch  away  the  principles  which  we 
had  so  boldly  asserted,  as  it  gave  encouragement  to  each  por- 
tion to  hope  that  its  candidate  for  Vice  President  would  be 
elected."  Was  it  not  snatching  away  our  principles  when 
Southern  delegates  were  induced  to  vote  :  for  such  men  as 
Buchanan  and  Cass  ?— "  chiefly  for  the  reason-that  they  could 
thus  secure  votes  for  the'Vice  Presidency."  Was  it  the  only 
way  in  which  the  interests  of  the  South  could  be  attacked, 
the  voting  down  resolutions  embodying  her  principles? 
When  Gen.  Cass  was  nominated  the  great  deed  of  wrong  and 
injury  to  the  South  was  consummated  ;  and  could  only  have. 
been  alleviated  by  a  bold  and  decided  expression  of  consti- 
tutional  ■  principles  on  the  part  of  the  Convention.  And, 
when  the  nomination  of  Gen.  Cass  was  confirmed  by  seven- 
ninths  of  the  Alabama  delegation,  before  a  platform  was  laid 
down  which  might  have  corrected  the  evil,  the  second  great 
error  was  committed  by  them  ;  for  they  thereby  impliedly  said 
to  the  Convention — we  are  satisfied  with  your  nominee  and 
with  his  principles;  and  one — Mr.  Winston  expressly  de- 
nounced the  advocates  of  the  Alabama  doctrines  as  the  "ultra 
'faciionistsof  the  South." — Our  demands  [the  North  were  thus 
told]  were  as  much  to  be  dreaded  and  despised  as  those  of 
"the  ultra  factionists of  the  North  !  "  What  inducement  pray 
had  the  Convention  to  adopt  our  principles  after  they  had 
been  thus  wantonly  aud  openly  abandoned  by  the  very  men 
who  were  delegated  to  uphold  them  in  that  body,  and  many 
of  whom  were  members  of  the  very  Convention  that  adopted 
them,  and  imposed  them  upon  themselves  as  "instructions"? 

The  fact  alluded  to  by  Messrs.  'Salomon  ..&  Winston,  that 
the  voting  for  the  Vice  Presidency  took  ^place  before  the 
voting  upon  the  resolutions  proves  nothing  against  my  charge. 
Before  an>  voting  was  'done  :in  Convention  1  have  charged 
that  the  basis  of  an  abandonment  of  our  instructions  by 
apart  of  the  delegation  was  laid  ;  and  it  has  been  since  cq&- 


43 

jessed  that  the  hopes  of  securing  the  Vice  Presidency  "chiefly^ 
'controlled  "a  part"  in  the  votes  afterwards  given  for  the  Pre- 
sidency: while  the  confirmation  of  that  nomination  had  a 
powerful  effect,  eventually,  in  the  adoption  and  rejection  of 
principles  ! 

Such  are  the  facts,  and  influences  in  part,  under  which  the 
votes  from  Alabama  were  cast.  My  colleague,  for  the  State 
at  large,  voted  for  Mr.  Buchanan.  The  votes  of  the  Hunts- 
ville,  Dallas  and  Mobile  district  were  also  cast  for  Z\lr.  13  , 
Gen.  Jackson  of  the  Dallas  district  being  overruled  in  his  op- 
position to  it.  The  votes  from  Lauderdale,  Greene,  Talla- 
dega and  Montgomery  districts,  with  my  own,  were  cast  for 
Judge  Woodbury. 

On  the  4th  ballot  Gen.  Cass  was  nominated.  On  the  1st 
ballot  he  proved  to  be  much  the  most  likely  to  be  nominated. 
This  fact  ascertained,  and  the  result  was  the  usual  one. — An 
expected  President  is  not  likely  to  lack  devoted  friends  ! 

After  the  nomination  was  made,  the  States  were  called 
upon  to  ratify  it  unanimously.  When  Alabama  was  called,  I 
stated — that,  Alabama  had  three  times  voted  for  Andrew 
Jackson,  twice  for  Martin  Van  Buren,  and  once  for  James  K. 
Polk — never  for  a  wing,  and  never  had  she  been  a  whig 
State.  She  will  still  adiiere  to  principle,  and  when  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  platform  upon  which  the  nominee  of  this  Con- 
vention is  to  go  before  the  people,  have  been  laid  down  by  the 
Convention,  if  those  principles  are  in  accordance  with  the  in- 
structions which  Alabama  had  given  to  her  delegates,  Ala- 
bama will  support  that  nominee. 

li  Mr.  Winston  of  Alabama  (delegate  at  large  with  Mr. 
Yancy,)  said  the  delegation  from  that  State  had  come  into  the 
Convention,  as  Delegates  and  as  honorable  men  were  bound 
to  support  its  nominee.  He  understood,  he  thought,  the  State 
of  Alabama,  well,  and  as  one  of  the  thirty  States  of  the 
Union,  she  would  not  set  up  herself  as  a  dictator  to  the  rest 
of  the  Union.  He- belonged  to  no  ultra  set  of  factionists  at 
the  South,  who  do  as  much  harm  as  do  another  ultra  set  of 
factionisis  at  the  North.  He  believed  that  Alabama  would 
give  her  vote  to  the  nominee  of  the  Convention.'7 

And  I  desire  these  words  may  be  remembered,  as  spoken 
to  a  mixed  body  of  delegates  from  slave  and  non-slave- 
holding  States ;  as  spoken  by  an  instructed  delegate 
— who  himself  was  a  member  of  the  very  convention  that 
adopted  our    instructions    without    a    dissenting   voice — as 


word's  placing  on  the  same  objectionable  footing  a  defender 
qf  the  South  and  an  Abolitionist.  And  supported  as  he 
was'  by  seven-ninths  of  the  vote  of  Alabama — with  such 
weight  given  to  his  words  as  Mr.  Porter  King  could  give 
by  his  emphatic  endorsement  immediately  after — that  "  Mr. 
J.  A.  Winston  was  the  Father  of  the  Democracy  of  Ala- 
bama !  " — [an  assertion,  which  let  us  doivn  someivhat,  I 
humbly  suggest,  from  our  heretofore  proudly  assumed  posi- 
tion—that Jefferson  was  the  father  of  our  Democracy !]  it- 
had  the  effect,  which  I  have  heretofore  suggested,  of  freeing 
the  Convention  from  all  obligations  to  adopt  the  rigid  prin- 
ciples laid  down  by  Alabama.  Her  delegates  had  expressed 
themselves  satisfied  with  the  nominee,  and  the  venerable 
"father  of  the  Democracy"  himself  hinted  to  the  Convention 
that  those  who  claimed  to  be  the  supporters  of  the  Alabama 
instructions  were  no  better  than  "  ultra  factionists  !  " 

Were  the  delegates  "as  honorable  men  bound  to  support 
the  nominee"  of  that  Convention"  at  that  stage  ?  This  will 
depend  upon  what  is  meant  by  honor;  for  unfortunately  as 
the  world  goes,  that  word  has  its  degrees  according  to  the 
company  in  which  it  is  used,  and  the  character  of  him  who 
uses  it.  It  is  said  there  is  "honor  among  thieves."  I  pre- 
sume from  the  expression  used  by  Mr.  J.  A.  Winston,  there 
is  too  a  sort  of  honor  among  politicians  of  his  stamp. 
Let  the  delegates  opposed  to  Cass  be  judged  by  that  stand- 
ard, and  he  may  make  out  his  case  ;  but  in  no  other  way. 

Mr.  J.  A.  Winston  was  a  member  of  the  State  Convention 
and  present,  when  the  resolutions  and  instructions  were  ia- 
troduced,  spoken-  upon,  and  unanimously  adopted.  Those 
resolutions  laid  down  certain  cardinal  principles,  and  not 
only  instructed  the  delegates  to  vote  in  the  Democratic  Na- 
tional Convention  for  no  man  for  President  who  was  opposed 
to  them,  but,  as  will  be  seen  by  reference  to  the  13th  resolu- 
tion, fhey  pledged  the  Convention  "  to  the  country,  and  its 
members  to  each  other,  under  no  political  necessity  what- 
ever, to  support  for  the  office  of  President  and  Vice  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States  any  person  who  shall  not  openly 
and  avowedly  be  opposed  to  either  of  the  forms  of  excluding 
slavery  from  the  territories  of  the  United  States,  mentioned 
in  the  resolutions." 

Here  then  is  a  recorded  personal  pledge,  given  by  Mr.  J. 
A.  Winston  to  the  country  and  to  the  other  members  of  that 
convention.,  that  if  the  nominee  of  the  Baltimore  Convention 


.45  . 

did  not  hold  the  principles  Alabama  had  laid  down,  he  would 
not  support  the  nominee  in  the  canvass  !  And  yet  Mr.  J.  A. 
Winston  says,  "  as  honorable  men  we  were  bound  to  sup- 
port its  nominee  !  ''—Why  ?  "because  the  delegation  from  that 
State  [Alabama]  had  gone  into  the  convention  as  delegates  !" 
If  it-is  honorable  to  violate  personal  pledges  at  will — to  break 
political  pledges,  at  one's  politieal  convenience — to  misrepre- 
sent the  constituency,  which  clothes  one  "  with  a  little  brief 
authority,"  then  is  the  remark  true — but  under  no  other 
code  of  morals. 

Besides,  Mr.  J.  A.  Winston  knows  that  the  Baltimore  Con- 
vention had  three  times  positively  refused  to  endorse  the 
principle — that  all  who  participated  in  the  proceedings  of  the 
Convention  should  be  bound  by  its  decision  ;  and  as  the  fiat 
of  that  body  appears  to  have  far  more  weight  with  him  than 
did  the  unanimous  voice  of  w  the  old-fashioned  matter  of  fact 
democracy"  of  his  own  state  while  at  Baltimore,  I  will  rely 
upon  it  as  good  authority  against  his  position.  I  have  not  the 
proceedings  before  me,  but  know  that  they  will  sustain  my 
statement.  A  resolution,  declaring  that  all  who  kept  their 
seats  in  that  Convention  were  bound  by  its  decision,  was 
three  times,  I  believe,  [I  know  full  well  was  twice]  brought 
forward  in  that  body,  by  Hannegan,  and  by  Judge  Cone  of 
Georgia,  and  at  my  instance  was  each  time  laid  upon  the 
•table  ;  I  declaring  it  to  be  improper,  and  that  the  Alabama 
delegation  were  so  instructed,  that  we  would  not  vote  for  it, 
and  would  not  be  bouud  by  it.  Gov.  Toucey.  of  Ct.  (now 
the  Attorney  General  of  the  United  States)  also  declared  em- 
phatically, "  that  were  such  a  test  proposed  to  him,  he  would 
button  up  his  coat  and  leave  the  hall  !  " 

Mr.  P.  King  was  followed  in  his  eulogy  upon  Mr.  J.  A. 
Winston,  (but  really  in  his  caricature  of  the  Alabama  De- 
mocracy) by  Gen.  C.  M.  Jackson,  who  took  a  somewhat 
similar  ground  to  that  advanced  by  me.  "  He  desired  that  as 
in  1844,  the  convention  should  lay  down  its  platform  of  prin- 
ciples, and  if  in  conformity  with  the  views  expressed  by  his 
Stare,  he  would  pledge  her  vote  for  the  nominee  of  the  Con- 
vention." ' 

Mr.  P.  A.  Wray  of  Montgomery  sustained  the  same 
position. 

APPOINTMENT    OP    THE    COMMITTEE    UPON    RESOLUTIONS. 

This  matter  through,  a  committee    was  raised  to  report 


4® 

/esoluyons  to  the  Convention.  I  was  selected  by  the  delega- 
tion to  represent  Alabama  in  its  deliberations.  Before  that 
commtttee  was  even  named,  it  appeared  to  be  the  prevailing 
sentiment  of  the  Convention,  receiving  its  cue  from  the  Union, 
which  had  urged 'the  idea  long  before  the  assembling  of  that 
body,  and  which  continued  to  enforce  it,  that  the  resolutions 
of  1S44  should  be  re-adopted  —  unaltered.  Knowing  thLv. 
and  that  if  the  South  obtained  anything  at  this  juncture — so 
different  in  many  respects  from  that  of  1844,  (when  this  issue 
was  not  prominent  and  in  fact  when  the  idea,  that  the  inha- 
bitants of  a  territory  could  exclude  slavery/. had  not  been 
broached,)  it  would  only  be  alter  a  severe  struggle,  I  drew 
up  and  presented  to  the  delegation  for  their  opinion,  the 
resolution  afterwards  introduced,  and  which  I  informed 
them  I  should  urge  before  the  committee.  It  is  conceded 
that  it  received  their  unanimous  assent.  Mr.  Winston  says 
in  his  address,  that  '•  Mr,  Bowden  came  to  the  delegation'  and 
made  a  feeling  appeal  to  have  Mr.  Yancey  put  on  the  Com- 
mittee upon  resolutions,  and  presented  a  slip  of  paper  with 
the  resolution,  or- something  similar  to  it.  I. objected  as  the 
resolution  was  complex  and  subject  to  too  much,  difference  of 
construction.  After  much  objection,  delay  and  dissatisfaction, , 
and  Mr.  Y.  had  paid  us  a  visit,  he  was  permitted  to  go  on 
the  committee,  with  the  expectation  on  our  part  that  in  case 
the  committee,  did  not  adopt  that  particular  resolution,  there, 
would  be  an  end  of  it." 

I  cannot  pretend  to  say  what  occurred  between  Mr.  Bow- 
den and  the  delegation.  What  I  know  of  this  matter  is  this  :'■ 
Mr.  Bowden,  acting  on  the  idea  that  I,  as  the  author  of  the 
Alabama  resolutions,  according  to  parliamentary  usage  and: 
courtesy,  should  be  the  member  of  the  committee,  from  out* 
State,  to  sustain  the  principles  embodied  in  that  platfoim  be- 
fore the  committee,  undertook  to  place  my  name  before  the 
delegation  with  that  view.  Of  this  I  was  fully  aware;  and 
have  no  hesitation  in  saying  that  I  desired  to  be  upon  the 
committee  for  the  purpose,  if  possible,  of  obtaining  its  assent 
to  our  doctrines. 

Observing,  from  where  I  sat,  apparently  some  wrangling 
amongst  the  delegation,  I  at  once  left  my  seat  and  went  to 
*he  delegation,  and  paid  the  *<  visit,"" so  disingeniously  allu- 
ded to  by  Mr.  Winston.  All  that  I  said 'there  was  to  beg  of 
them  not  to  permit  my  name  to  be  the  least  cause  of  discord — 
Shat  I  confessed  to   have  entertained  a  desire  to  be  on  \h% 


47 

committee,  being  the  author  and  therefore  more  appropriated 
advocate  and  defender  of  the  Alabama  resolutions — but  tnafi 
if  any  of  the  delegation  did  not  desire  it,  I, at  once  withdrew 
rr>y  name  and  would  cheerfully  agree  to  the  appointment  of 
any  one  they  desired.  ]*  was  turning  to  leave  them,  when 
Mr.  Sanford  informed  me  there  was  no  difficulty  — that  all 
had  agreed  to  appoint  me. 

I  afterwards  learned  that  a  portion  of  the  delegation  had 
desired  Mr.  S.  Moore  to  consent  to  serve  on  that  committee,, 
and  that  that  gentleman,  with  characteristic  generosity  and 
sense  of  right,  declined  in  my  favor. 

The  true  cause  of  this  opposition  to  my  being  put  upon 
that  committee  may  be  searched  for,  and  most  probably 
found,  in  the  origin  of  the  ''  Giles''  assaults  upon  the  State 
Convention,  and  iii  the  reasons  for  the  unqualified  commit- 
ment of  the  S.'ate  to  the  nomination  of  Gen.  Cass,  before  the 
platform  was  adopted.  It  was  doubtless  very  desirable  that 
the  resolutions  of  Alabama  should  be  quietly  consigned  to 
the  tomb  of  the  Capulets,  and  never  again  rise  in  judgment 
against  the  "  deep  damnation"  of  that  astonishing  defection. 

Without  pretending  to  know  what  occurred  between  the 
delegation  and  Mr.  13owden,  (if  indeed  anything  did  occur,) 
about  the  resolution  afterwards  submitted  by  me,  I  know 
very  well  what  occurred  between  it  and  myself.  I  presented, 
the,  resolution,  after  I  was  appointed  upon  the  committee. 
If  Mr.  Winston  objected,  his  objection  escaped  my  ear,  as  it 
certainly  has  my  memory.  Of  this  I  am  sure,  no  "expecta- 
tion" of  the  kind  spoken  of  by  Mr.  Winston  was  expressed 
to  me,  either  by  him  or  the  delegation.  I  read  to  tbem  the  reso- 
lution— it  was  unanimously  agreed  to.  I  did  not  ask  the  con- 
sent of  the  delegation  to  present  it.  I  asked  only  their  opinion 
upon  it,  as  an  exposition  of  our  principles.  I  told  them  I  should 
present  it — and  asked  -their  asse?it  to  the  doctrine.  Had  any 
such  "  expectation"  been  expressed,  I  should  very  frankly 
have  asserted  my  right,  to  pursue  in  Convention  such  course 
in  relation  to  it,  as  my  own  judgment  dictated — without 
going  even  to  a  reputed  "father  of  the  Alabama- Democracy" 
for  advice  and  permission. 

As  to  Mr.  J.  A.  Winston's  considering  the  resolution  "too 
complex  and  subject  to  too  much  difference  of  construction" 
— I  think  that  very  probable  and  yet  not  very  strange,  if  .we 
consider  the  cast  of  his  mind  in  connection  with  the  fact  that 
he  did  not  even  know  precisely  what  was  on  the  "  slip  oj 


4S 

paper"  which  was  presented  by  Mr.  Bowden,  and  on  which 
he  has,  nevertheless,  offered  so  critical  an  opinion  ! 

It  may  not  be  amiss  for  the  reader  to  refer  to  the  official 
proceedings  of  that  Convention.  If  he  does  so,  he  will  be 
somewhat  surprised,  (considering  t tide  horror  which  the  pre- 
sentation and  advocacy  of  this  minority  resolution  has  ex- 
cited among  the  faithful,  and  that  Mr.  Winston  had  "  object- 
ed, as  the  resolution  was  complex  and  subject*to  too  much 
difference  of  construction" — and  that  there  was  an  "  expec- 
tation" on  the  part  of  the  delegates,"  that  in  case  the  com- 
mittee did  not  adopt  that  particular  resolution,  there  would 
be  an  end  of  it)  to  find  that  this  same  Mr.  Winston — toge- 
ther with  the  entire  JUabama  delegation  voted,  for  it  in 
Convention,  after  the  committee  had  refused  to  adopt  it, 
on  its  presentation  by  the  minority ! — and  after  I  had 
addressed  the  Convention  in  support  and  explanation  of  it ; 
and  of  course  after  all  had  an  opportunity  of  knowing  the 
construction  put  upon  it  by^the  minority  of  the  committee  ; 
and  after  I  had  declared  that  without  some  additional  gua- 
rantee of  our  rights  in  this  matter,  Alabama  would  not  sup- 
port the  nominee  !  But  who  would  suppose  so,  after  read- 
ing the  addresses  of  Messrs.  Salomon,   Winston  &  Sanford  ? 

DOINGS    OF    THE    COMMITTEE    ON    RESOLUTIONS. 

The  committee  "met  early  after  its  creation,  and  satunpl 
near  midnight.  There  was  much  harmony  in  its  delibera- 
tions, until  we  reached  the  7th  resolution.  It  was  proposed 
to  adopt  the  7th  resolution,  as  it  stood  in  the  series  of  resolu- 
tions adopted  in  1S40  and  1S44.  I  proposed  to  amend  it,  by 
adding  thereto  the  following — 

"  Resolved  farther,  That  the  doctrine  of  non-interference  with  the.  rights 
of  property  of  any  portion  of  the  people  of  this  confederacy,  be  it  in 
the  Statesor  Territories,  by  any  other  than  the.parties  interested  in  them, 
is  the  true  republican  doctrine  recognized  by  this  body." 

In  support  of  it,  I  held  that  the  state  of  politics  on  the 
slave  question  was  very  different  at  that  time  from  what  it 
iiad  been  in  1S40T1S44. — That  a  new  issue  was  presented, 
which  required  a  corresponding  movement  on  the  part  of  a 
party,  which  styled  itself  'f:  the  progressive  party" — and  that 
instructed  as  I  was  by  my  State,  I  felt  it  to  be  my  duty  to 
urge  the  adoption  of  the  resolution  which,  I  believed,  embo- 
died the  great  principles  we  contehded  for. 

The  resolution  had  no  "  complex"  meaning  to  the  mem- 


49 

bers  of  the  committee.  All  seemed  readily  to  understand  it. 
The  vote  upon  it  in  committee  stood — yeas,  Pennsylvania, 
Virginia,  South  Carolina,  Georgia,  Florida,  Mississippi, 
Texas  and  Wisconsin — 9.  Nays — Maine,  New  Hampshire, 
Vermont,  Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island,  Connecticut,  New 
Jersey,  Delaware,  Maryland,  North  Carolina,  Louisiana, 
Arkansas,  Tennesee,  Kentucky,  Ohio,  Indiana,  Illinois, 
Michigan,  Iowa,  Missouri, — 20. 

It  may  also  be  worthy  of  remark  that  Mr,  Glenn,  the 
member  of  the- committee  from  Tennessee,  was  decidedly  in 
favor  of  the  resolution,  but  voted  against  it  under  instructions  ; 
and  that  Mr.  Slidell  of  Louisiana,  argued  that  the  committee 
should  not  adopt  it — •'  inasmuch  as  the  Convention  had 
already  nominated  Gen.  Cass,  who  entertained  opinions  di- 
rectly the  reverse  of  the  resolution  ;  and  therefore,  if  the 
Convention  should  adopt  the  resolution,  it  would  rebuke  the 
opinions  of  Gen.  Cass,  and  be  inconsistent  with  itself!" 

That  speech  exhibited  in  all  its  force,  the  verv  dilemma 
which  at  a  previous  stage  of  the  Convention  I  had  struggled 
to  hvoid  when  I  moved  to  adopt  a  platform  of  principles  be- 
fore we  made  a  nomination.  Had  we  adopted  our  platform 
first,  if  either  gave  way,  it  would  have  been  the  candidates 
for  the  nomination  and  not  our  measures.  But  having  made 
a  nomination  first,  the  Convention  was  actually  called  upon 
not  to  adopt  a  principle,  because  forsooth  the  nominee  did 
not  entertain  it  !  The  nomination  thus  controlled  the  reso- 
lutions ! 

Another  a-tlempt  was  made  to  amend  the  7th  resolution  as 
reported,  by  adding  after  the  words — "  the  several  states," 
the  words — •'  or  territories."  This  too  was  voted  down,  by 
a  vote  of  10  to  17. 

Before  we  adjourned,  on  the  first  evening  of  our  meeting, 
a1;  my  instance  the  committee  gave  its  unanimous  assent  to 
the  amendment  of  the  resolution  of  1S44  on  the  veto  power, 
as  it  now  stands  in  the  report — an  amendment  which  was  de- 
signed, though  thy  design  was  not  avowed,  to  thank  Presi- 
dent Polk  for  his  vetoes  of  •'  a  corrupting  system  of  general 
internal  improvement" — and  to  condemn  the  votes  of  Gen. 
Cass  for  those  measures.  When  the  committee  met  next 
morning  some  member  got  up,  and  moved  a  reconsideration 
of  that  amendment— "  on  the  ground  that  Gen-  Cass  had 
voted  for  the  very  bills  which  James  K  Folk  had  vetoed  \ 
and  if  that  amendment  was  left  there  it  would  look  like  a  thrust 

D 


50 

lit  him,  and  be  good  capital  for  the  whig  orators.  The  move 
was  seconded,  and  with  apparent  manifestations  of  approval, 
It  was  only  defeated  by  an  indignant  exposure  of  the  iniqui- 
ty and  humiliating  baseness  of  such  a  proceeding.  A  prece- 
dent had  been  set,  nevertheless,  for  his  course  ;  and  the 
mover  was  only  unsuccessful,  inasmuch  as  the  committee  had? 
as  I  honestly  believe,  voted  on  the  internal  improvement 
amendment,  the  night  before,  without  at  all  remembering  Gen. 
Cass's  votes  on  that  question  I — and  it  was  rather  too  bare- 
faced to  reconsider  it. 

Unable  to  obtain  from  the  committee  a  recognition  of  the 
rights  of  Southern  citizens  to  emigrate  to  the  territories  with 
their  slave  property  —and  finding  that  the  committee  would 
not  in  their  report  take  higher  ground,  than  that,  which  the 
Barnburners  yielded,  and  which  even  Joshua  R.  Giddings- 
does  not  now  dispute.  I  deemed  it  my  duty  to  make  an  ap- 
peal to  the  Convention— and  once  again  to  make  an  effort  to 
obtain  the  assent  of  that  body  to  the  principles  which  I  was- 
instructed  to  maintain.  I  made  that  report  in  conjunction 
with  the  representatives  of  Florida  and  South  Carolina,  and 
insisted  upon  a  vote  upon  the  resolution.  The  vote  was  as 
follows  : 

Yeas — Maryland  I,  South  Carolina  9,  Georgia  9,  Florida 
3,  Alabama  9,  Arkansas  3,  Tennessee  1 .  Kentucky  1  — 30. 

Ntff/s — Maine  9,  New  Hampshire  6,  Massachusetts  12, 
Vermont  G,  Rhode  Island  4,  Connecticut  0,  New,  Jersey  7, 
Pennsylvania  2G,Delaware  3,  Maryland  6,  Virginia  17,  North 
Carolina  1!,  Mississippi  G,  Louisiana  6,  Texas  4,  Tennessee 
12.  Kentucky  U,  Ohio  23,  Indiana  12,  Illinois  9,  Michigan 
5,  Iowa  4,  Missouri  7,  Wisconsin  4 — 21G. 

Tills  resolution,  thus  summarily  voted. down,  has  been 
declared  less  satisfactory  than  lhatadontei  by  the  Conven- 
tion, and  also  as  putting  forth  different  doctrines  from  those 
of  the  Alabama  resolutions. 

It  may  appear  so,  and  also  "complex"' .to  those  who  are 
ignorant  of  the  Checks  and  balances  of  our  government,  and 
ivho  content  themselves  tvith  looking  to  find  the  track  a  par- 
ty is  taking  without  at  all  inquiring  into  the  propriety  of  the 
course.  It  is  true  the  resolution  could  have  been  framed  so 
as  to  have  been  mire  specific  or  more  particularly  applicable 
to  the  South,  and  in  stronger  language. .  Out  had  it  been  S", 
it  would  have  savored  of  being  entirely  sectional  Without 
e&nveym'g  a  better  principle,   Considering  the  character  of  the 


51 

b:)dy  in  which  it  was  offered,  the  majority  of  which  was. 
against  the  Southern  section,  it  was  considered  best,  so  to 
frame  it  as  to  cover  a  general  constitutional  principle  appli- 
cable to  every  portion  of  the  country,  and  also  to  exclude 
from  it  any  phraseology,  which  had  become  offensive  to  the 
ears  of  Northern  men  by  long  connection  with  the  agitation 
of  this  question.  In  the  shape  in  which  it  was  offerred,  (and 
which  was  given  to  it  under  the  counsel  of  an  able  man  and 
keen  observer  of  passing  events,  in  that  Convention,)  it  had 
reasonable  and  well  grounded  expectations  of  receiving  a 
much  greater  western  support  than  it  did  receive. 

In  the  committee  the  vutes.  of  two  Northern  States  were 
given  to  it,  which  which  were  withdrawn  in  Convention.  In 
the  committee  too,  Virginia,  Mississippi  and  Texas  voted 
for  it.  but  .voted  against  it  in  Convention  !  Who  could  ex- 
pect a  Northern  state  to  be  true  to  us  to  the  last,  when  so  ■ 
large  a  portion  of  the  South  flinched  upon  an  assertion  of  her 
own  interests  ! — when  that  portion  of  the  South  did  not  dare 
to  stand  up  in  Convention  in  defence  of  her  course  iri  a  com- 
mittee room  !  What  in  secret  they  asked  for,  in  public  they 
denied  ! 

ANALYSIS    OF    THE    RESOLUTION    OF    THE    MINORITY. 

That  resolution  recognizes  a  distinction  to  exist  between 
She  political  condition  of  a,  State,  and  of  a  Territory  of  the 
United  States,  It  is  indeed  based  upon  that  distinction.  A 
State  is  sovreign  as  to  its  domestic  affairs,  within  its  own 
limits — there  is  no  other  power  that  can  interfere  with  them. 
Even  the  legislature  of  a  State  cannot  destroy  the  rights  of 
properly  of  any  of  its  ciiizens-^-Il  may  take  property  "for 
public  use,"  but  must  give  a  just  recompense  for  it.  It 
may  \\\?<\i>z  police  regulations  as  to  property,  and  may  lax  it — 
but  it  cannot  destroy  it.  So  high  is  the  right  of  properly  re- 
garded in  our  State,  that  the  Supreme  Court  has  recently  de- 
cided that  the  law  of  our,  legislature  placing  a  tax-on  the 
property,  wilhin  our  limits,  of  citizens  of  other  States,  higher 
than  is  placed  upon  the  property  of  our  owhi  citizens,  is  un- 
constitutional. The  only  power  in  a  State  that  can  abolish 
slavery  in  a  State — or  in  other  words  prescribe  what  shall, 
or  shall  net  be  property  in  that  State,  is  the  people,  met  in 
sovereign  Convention,  and  speaking  through  the  constitution 
which  they  may  form.  Every  people,  who  agree  to  ban! 
together. in  political  society,  for  the  more  perfect  protection  of 


52 

life,  liberty  and  property — the  three  great  aims  of  society,  are 
of  course  interested  in  every  constitutional  provision,  which 
is  to  effect  either;  and  each  member  in  such  Convention  has 
the  fullest  liberty  to  propose  and  to  vote  upon  anything 
which  may  seem  to  him  to  be  most  conducive  to'his  happi- 
ness in  the  State,  which  he  is  aiding  to  form.  There  is  no 
higher  tribunal  which  can  check  him — no  sovreignty  greater 
than  his  own.  And,  in  the  case  of  the  formation  of  a  State, 
With  a  view  to  admittance  into  our  Union  as  a  State,  there 
is  but  one  single  check  uoon  this  perfect  liberty  of  thought 
and  action,  and  that  is — the  constitution  to  be  framed  shall  be 
"republican."  Hence  it  follows,  that  the  only  parties  con- 
stitutionally interested  "  in  the  rights  of  property"  of  any 
citizen  in  a  State,  are — 

1st — The  supreme  power — the  people  in  convention — who 
abolish,  or  exclude  them,  or  provide  for  regulating  them 
through  the  action  of  the  legislature. 

2d — The  citizen  himself,  who  can  exercise  his  own  plea- 
sure in  relation  to  them,  either  to  give  them  up  or  dispose  of 
them,  under  that  State  Constitution.  It  also  follows,  that 
Congress  having  no  other  power  in  regulating  the  institutions 
of  a  State  than  "to  guarantee  to  each  State  a  republican 
form  of  government,-"'  has  no  power  over  or  interest  "in  the 
rights  of  property"  of  the  citizen  of  any  State. 

A  Territory  of  the  United  States,  it  is  conceded,  is  but  pro- 
perty held  by  the  United  States  in  trust  for  the  people  of  the 
States — and  is  only  recognized  as  such  by  the  federal  consti- 
tution. There  are  only  two  clauses  in  the  federal  constitu- 
tion which  relate  in  any  degree  to  "territory."  In  Art.  1, 
sec.  S,  it  is  specified  that  Congress  shall  have  power  "To 
exercise  exclusive  legislation  in  all  cases  whatsoever,  over 
such  district  (not  exceeding  ten  miles  square)  as  may,  by  ces- 
sion of  particular  States,  and  the  acceptance  of  Congress, 
become  the  seat  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  and 
to  exercise  like  authority  over  all  places  purchased  by  the 
legislature  of  the  State  in  which  the  same  shall  be,  for  the 
erection  of  forts,  magazines,  arsenals,  dock-yards  and  other 
useful  buildings." 

Art.  4,  sec.  '8 — "  The  Congress  shall  have  power  to  dispose 
of  and  make  all  useful  rules  and  regulations  respecting  the 
territory,  or  other  property  belonging  to  the  United  States  ; 
and   nothing  in  this  constitution  shall  be  so  construed  as  to 


53 

prejudice  any  claims  of  the  United  States,  or  of  any  particu- 
lar State." 

It  will  be  perceived  that  there  is  a  recognized  distinction 
made  by  the  framers  of  the  Constitution,  between  the  territo- 
ry of  the  District  of  Columbia  and  "  the  territory  or  other 
property  of  the  United  States." 

In  the  case  of  the  District  of  Columbia,  it  is  clear  that  the 
framers  of  the  Constitution  designed  to  give  to  Congress  the 
power  of  legislating  for  that  district.  Proper  terms  were 
used  to  convey  such  a  power.  It  was  designed  that  the  dis- 
trict should  be  a  political  community — and  that  Congress 
should  be  its  law-making  power.  Not  so,  however,  with 
"  the  territory"  of  the  United  States.  The  Constitution  no 
where  speaks  of  "  the  territory"  of  the  United  States,  save 
in  the  4th  Art.  quoted,  and  fin  that  which  gives  power  to 
legislate  for  the  District-  In  the  4th  Art.  it  speaks  of  it  as 
of  "  other  property  "  and  gives  Congress  power  only  to 
make  "  useful  rules  and  regulations."  This  is  vastly  differ- 
ent from  a  general  power  of  legislation.  Legislation  is  based 
upon  the  idea  of  there  being  a  political  community  to  legis- 
late for — to  make  "  useful  rules  and  regulations,"  is  a  more 
restricted  power,  applicable  solely  to  the  preservation,  police, 
and  sale  of  territory  as  h  property."  Else  why  use  such 
peculiar  terms  by  which  to  express  that  Congressshould  ex- 
ercise powers  of  legislation,  "  exclusive"  or  otherwise,  if  it 
was  designed  to  grant  such  a  power  ?  When  the  framers  of 
the  Constitution  wished  to  grant  such  a  power  they  used  the 
clear  and  unequivocal  terms  "  to  exercise  exclusive  legisla- 
tion, in  ail  cases  whatsoever  over  such  district"  as  might  be 
ceded  When  they  desired  to  grant  a  more  restricted  power, 
and  to  express  for  what  purpose,  and  with  what  view  such 
power  was  given,  they  used  different  and  more  appropriate 
terms — 1«  needful  rules  and  regulations  respecting  the  territory, 
or  other  property  of  the  United  States." 

Again  to  show  that  is  the  true  meaning,  the  same  clause 
goes  on  to  put  in  a  proviso  — that  "nothing  in  this  constitu- 
tion should  be  so  construed  as  to  prejudice  the  claims  of  the 
United  States,  or  of  any  particular  State."  Thus  clearly 
evincing  the  design  to  grant  a  power  solely  relative  to  pro- 
perty and  yet  not  to  prejudice  the  claims  to  such  property,  of 
of  any  State. 

Those  who  have  carefully  read  the  proceedings  of  those 
able  statesmen    who  framed  the    Constitution,  know    what 


54 


skilful  philologists  they  were, and  know  how  thoroughly  the} 
weighed  each  word  in  the  instrument,  and  with  what  care 
the  committee  appointed,  revised  it,  after  its  principles  an$ 
grants  were  agreed  upon.  Different  language  in  that  instru- 
ment gives  different  power. 

If  it  may  be  considered  established  that  Congress  can  only 
make  "needful  rules  and  regulations"  for  the  territory  as 
property,  and  holds  it  in  irust  for  the  people  of  ihe  State,  it  is 
clear  that  Congress  has  no  power  to  make  discriminating 
rules  and  regulations  which  will  prevent  the  citizens  of  any 
state  from  settling  on  property  in,  which  they  have  a  joint 
interest •  that  Congress  has  no  power  to  define  what  shall  or 
shall  not  be  held  in  such  territory  as  property — lias  no  power 
to  say  that  slavery  shall  not  exist  there. 

Is  there  any  power  to  govern  a  territory  apart  from  the 
limited  power  granted  to  Congress  ?  None.  The  Constitution;, 
by  granting  a  limited  power  to  Congress  excludes  the  idea 
that  there  can  be  any  other  source,  under  the  Constitution,, 
from  which  a  greater  power  can  be  derived.*  Our  Constitu- 
tion recognizes  no  Cl  imperiam  in  imperio."  The  people  who 
go  there  and  settle,  do  so  as  mere  land-holders,  subject  to  the 
limited  authority  already  described.  They  are  not  sovreign. 
If  they  were,  the  territory — the  eminent  domain  as  it  is 
called,  would  not  be  in  Congress,  but  would  be  in  them.  /If 
they  were  sovreign,  the  territory  would  belong  to  them  ex- 
clusively— that  is  the  right  to  govern  it — and  to  control  it.  If 
sovereign,  it  is  conceded  they  would  undoubtedly  have  the 
right  to  prevent  slaves  from  being  brought  there.  This 
would  destroy,  however,  that  community  of  interest  in  the 
territories,  which  all  agree,  the  people  of  all  the  States  have. 
While  in  that  condition,  they  can  have  no  senators,  no  repre- 
sentatives in  Congress — if  sovereign,  they  would  have,  They 
can  pass  no  laws,  which  are  not  subject  to  revision  and  re- 
jection by  Congress — if  sovreign  they  could  do  so.  They 
cannot  elect  a  Governor:  the  Governor  is  appointed  by  the 
President.  If  sovreign  they  would  not  be  compelled  to  re- 
ceive a  magistrate  appointed  by  a  superior  power. 

The  people  then  who  remove  to,  and  reside  in,  a  territory 
have  no  government  and  no  right  to  make  one,  save  such  as 
Congress  prescribes  for  them.  Congress  has  heretofore  pre- 
scribed territorial  governments  under  that  clause  of  the  Con- 
stitution which  authorizes  it  to  make  "needful  rules  and  regu- 
lations for   the  territory,   or  other   property   of    the  I'nUc'-l 


States.'''  Thinking  that  the  citizens  could  be  the  bene? 
judges  of  what  "'rules  and  regulations"  would  be  best  for 
them,  Congress  has,  (as  I  contend,  unconstitutionally)  dele- 
gated to  them  the  power  of  a  territorial  government —has 
granted  a  territorial  legislature — and  the  President  has  ap- 
pointed a  territorial  governor.  Mvidea  is  that  a  trustee  can- 
not delegate  his  powers  to  another,  in  such  a  case.  But  the 
fact  that  Congress  has  done  this,  does  not  at  all  affect  the 
argument  I  now  make.  But  conceding  the  action  of  Congress 
as  to  territorial  governments  heretofore  to  have  been  constitu- 
tional, what  powers  dojhe  citizens  receive  from  Congress? 
Js  it  an  unlimited  power  to  pass  any  law,  which  they  may 
see  fit  to  pass?  Certainly  not.  They  cannot  receive  from 
Congress  any  greater  power  than  Congress  could  have  exer- 
cised in  relation  to  them  itself.  Congress,  it  is  agreed  at  least 
at  the  South,  could  not,  for  instance,  exclude  slavery  from  a. 
territory.  It  follows  then,  that  Congress  couid  not  grant  to 
its  agents — the  citizens  of  a  territory,  a  power  which  it  could 
not  exercise  ; — the  territorial  legislature,  therefore,  cannot  ex- 
clude slavery  from  the  territory.,  for  that  reason.  The  crea- 
ture cannot  be  stronger  than  t Lie  creator.  The  agent  cannot 
have  a  greater  power,  as  to  the  matter  of  his  agency — than 
the  principal. 

What  may  rdie  citizens  do  then?  The  answer  is,  under 
the  territorial  government,  even  as  has  heretofore  been 
granted  by  Congress,  they  can  do  all  things  K  needful"  for 
their  condition,  which  Congress  could  have  done  for  them  — 
all  which  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  rights  of  the  peopleof 
each  and  every  State  in  the  territory,  and  with  the  Consiitu~ 
lion  of  the  United  States.  Under  my  idea  of  the  Constitu- 
tional restrictions  imposed  upon  Congress,  it  can  only  make 
such  "  rules  and  regulations,"  as  will  secure  the  sale  of  the 
territory  to  the  citizens  of  the  States.  To  do  this,  Congress 
would  necessarily  have  to  survey  it — plot  it — clear  iF  of  In- 
dians— provide  offices  of  sale,  and  protect  the  settler  in  the 
property  thus  purchased,  both  from  Indians  and  white  depre- 
dators— secure  to  him  a  peaceable  possession  of  his  premises, 
as  long  as  the  government  held  control  of  it,  as  a  trust  for  the 
Slates,  and  until  the  settlers  were  ready  to  frame  a  Slate  Con- 
stitution and  to  come  into  the  Union  as  a  State.  The  citizens, 
in  a  legislature  granted  by  Congress,  can  do  no  more.  Hence 
I  conclude  that  the  parties  interested  in  the  rights  of  property 
«?.f  a  citizen  in  a  territory,  are  .mot  those  who  exarcise  a  limited 


56 

territorial  government  under  Congress,  or  who  do  not  own 
those  rights,  but  are  the  individual  possessors  of  those  lights 
Congress,  therefore,  could  by  no  act  deprive  a  citizen  there  of 
his  slave  :  the  territorial  legislature,  therefore,  could  not  do 
so.  If  the  legislature  of  a  State  cannot  take  away  the  slave 
of  a  citizen,  or  prevent  his  owning  one,  or  even  tax  the  slave 
of  a  non-resident  higher  than  that  of  a  resident,  how  mon- 
strous the  proposition  that  the  legislature  of  a  territory,  hav- 
ing no  single  attribute  of  sovreignty,  can  do  so !  The 
legislature  of  a  State  cannot,  do  so,  because  the  constitution 
of  the  State  does  not  permit  it.  The  legislature  of  a  Territo- 
ry— the  property  of  the  States,  cannot  do  so,  because  the 
only  constitution  which  controls  it,  that  of  the  United  States, 
does  not  permit  it. 

The  owner  then,  as  I  have  said,  is  the  ?oie  party  interested 
in  his  "  rights  of  property"  in  the  territorv — and  no  power, 
but  his  own  will,  can  prevent  him  from  removing  to,  and  re- 
siding in  a  territory  with  those  privileges.  This  condition  of 
things  continues,  as  above  intimated,  until  the  inhabitants 
desire  to  come  into  the  Union.  Then  they  can  come  in,  on 
the  same  terms  as  the  original  thirteen  States  came — deriding 
this  question  for  themselves.  Then  they  meet  in  convention— 
then  they  assume  the  sovreignty  of  the  territory  for  the  first 
time — then  each  citizen,  for  the  first  time,  becomes  interested 
in  the  great  question — what  shall  be  held  by  us  as  property 
and  what  not,  and  the  decision  of  that  body  is  conclusive, 
and  becomes  binding  on  the  admission  of  the  new  State  into 
the  Union. 

Such  is  the  character  of  the  resolution  voted  down  by  a 
Democratic  National  Convention.  In  lieu  of  it  the  following 
was  adopted  : 

"7.  That  Congress  has  no  power  under  the  constitution  to  interfere 
Avith  or  control  the  domestic  institutions  of  the  several  States,  and  that 
such  States  are  the  sole  and  proper  judges  of  everything  appertaining  to 
their  own  affairs,  not  prohibited  by  the  constitution  ;*  that  all  efforts  of  the 
abolitionists  or  others  made  to  induce  Congress  to  interfere  with  questions 
of  slavery,  or  to  take  incipient  steps  in  relation  thereto,  are  calculated  to 
lead  to  the  most  alarming  and  dangerous  consequences  ;  and  that  ail  such 
efforts  have  an  inevitable  tendency  to  diminish  the  happiness  of  the  peo- 
ple, and  endanger  the  stability  and  permanency  of  the  Union,  and  ought 
not  to  be  countenanced  by  any  friend  of  our  political  institutions." 

What  does  that  resolution  assert  ?  Simply  that  Congress 
has  no  power  to  abolish  slavery  in  the  States.  Does  it  even 
deny  a  branch* of  the  great  question  of  the  day — '■  the  power 


57 

of  Congress  to  do  so  in  the  territories"  ?  Ii  does  not — though 
the  names  of  eminent  gentlemen  in  that  Convention  are 
quoted  to  prove  that  it  does.  The  people  of  the  South,  how- 
ever will  certainly  be  excused  if  they  ask  for  pome  more  tan- 
gible and  enduring  evidence  of  it  than  the  ipse-dixit  of  pvery 
Bailey  and  Strange  in  Virginia  and  North  Carolina.  It  is 
true  the  resolution  says  all  efforts  to  "induce  Congress  lo  in- 
terfere in  the  questions  of  slavery/'  "  are  calculated  to  lead 
to  dangerous  consequences,''" — but  that  is  a  mere  statement 
of  an  liypothesis  I  It  neither  asserts,  nor  negatives  any 
power  in  Congress — it  does  not  deny  to  Congress  i lie  power 
to  "  interfere  wiih  questions  of  slavery"'  in  the  territories.  It 
is  true  too  that  the  resolution  closes  by  denouncing  such 
efforts  as  having  ".  an  inevitable  tendency  to  diminish  the 
happiness  of  the  people — and  endanger  the  stability  of  the 
Union,  and  "  ought  not  to  countenanced  !  " 

But  ivhere,  in  what  part  of  it,  does  it  deny  to  Congress 
the  right  and  the  power  to  "  interfere  with  questions  of  sla- 
very'-1 in  the  territories?  //  is  no  denial  of  it,  to  say  that 
"dangerous  consequences"  will  ioUow  the  exercise  of  such  a 
power.  It  is  no  denial  to  say  that  its  exercise  will  "  diminish 
the  happiness  of  the  people.*'  It  is  no  denial  to  say  that 
"  ah  efforts  to  induce  Congress"  to  exercise  it  ought  not  to 
be  countenanced.  All  this  is  but  an  expression  of  the  ine- 
vitable dangers  which  will  follow  the  exercise  of  such  a 
power — nothing  more. 

That  resolution  too  can  be  indorsed  as  far  as  its  assertion 
and  denial  of  a  principle  is  concerned,  by  Joshua  Giddings. 
He  admits  Congress  lias  no  power  to  abolish  slavery  in  a 
State,  but  contends  that  it  can  do  so  in  territories.  The 
Barnburners  have  endorsed  it.  At  their  great  meeting,  in  the 
Park.  New  York  City,  after  the  Baltimore  Convention  had 
adjourned  and  at  which  John  Van  Buren,  B.  F.  Buttlerand 
C.  C.  Cambreling  were  present,  they  passed  the  following  re- 
solution: 

<:  8  Resolved,  That  on  account  of  its  peculiar  prominence  at  this  time 
we  renew  and  reassert  our  concurrence  in,  and  our  adhesion  to,  the 
seventh  proposition,  included  in  the  declaration  of  principles  of  1840  arid 
1844.  in  which  it  is  affirmed  :  "  That  Congress  has  no  power  under  the 
constitution  to  interfere  with  or  control,  the  domestic  institutions  of  the 
several  States,  and  that  such  States  are  the  sole  and  proper  jndges  of 
everything  appertaining  to  their  own  affairs,  not  prohibited  by  the  consti- 
tution: that  all  efforts  of  the  abolitioirsts,  and  others,  madoto  induce  Con- 
gress to  interfere  with  questions  of  slavery,  or  lo  take  incipient  steps  m 


relation  thereto  are  calculated  to. lead  to  the  most  alarming- and  dangerous 
.'0i:soquences,  and  that  all  such  efforts  have  an  inevitable  tendet.cv  t  i 
<lirh,knsh  the  happiness  of  the  people,  and  endanger  the  stability  at.  1  per- 
mariency  of-the  Union,  and  ought  not  to  be  countenanced  by  any  Friend 
of  our  political  institutions."  That  ws  receive  this  proposition  now  as 
we  received  it  when  first  promulgated,  and  in  the  sense,  and  for  the  pur- 
pose contemplated  by  itsframers,  namely,  as  designed  to  protect  the  citizens 
of  the  several  states  in  their  property  and  domestic  institutions  of  such 
States,  against  all  extraneous  interference,  and  as  not  at  aH  touching,  or 
intended  to  touch,  die  question  of  the  power  of  Congress  to  prohibit  the 
establishment  or  introduction  of  gfavery  in  free  territory  thereafter  to  lie 
acquired  by  the  United  States — which  question  was  not  before  the  cou::- 
firy.  either  in  1S40,  when  this  proposition  was  first  adopted,  or  in  1844, 
when  it  was  renewed  and  reiterated.1' 

The  Baltimore  Convention  then  did  not  assert  as  mtveh  con- 
stitutional truth,  as  it  is  freely  admitted  Gen.  Cass  had  done. 
Gen.  Cass  was  willing  to  say  that  Congress  could  not  inter- 
fere with  questions  of  slavery  in  either  States  or  Territories. 
Why  then  did  riot  the  Convention  assert  as  much  ?  Simply 
because  it  found  the  South  in  a  temper  to  recede—Simply  be- 
cause Northern  men  wiil  go  no  further  on  this  issue  than  they 
are  driven,  or  compelled  to  go,  by  the  unity  and  nerve  with 
which  the  South  demands  it-.  In  this  case  a  Southern  man — 
editor  of  the  leading  Democratic  press  of  the  Union — Mr. 
Ritchie,  proposed  that  this  should  be  all  the  Convention 
should  say — and  in  the  Convention,  the  editor  of  the  admin- 
istration paper,  in  the  nib  of  whose  pen  lay  so  many  political 
dealhs  or  fortunes,  could  muster  a  goodly  number  of  Southern 
followers  to  enforce  his  wishes  ;  and  in  the  Convention  too, 
the  belief  which  the  North  had  a  long  time  enjertaiued  that 
Virginia  and  Alabama  would  stand  up  to  their  resolutions, 
had  vanished  before  the  action  of  a  'large  majority  of  the  de- 
legates of  both  States. 

THE    VICE    PRESIDENCY. 

During  the  session  of  the  committee  on  resolutions,  the 
ballotings  for  Vice  'Presidency  took  place.  I  had  deputed 
my  friend  and  firm  co-operator,  Mr.  P.  A.  Wray,  to  cast  my 
vote  On  the  1st  ballot  for  Col.  King,  in  deference  to  the  desire 
of  the  State  Convention  to  have  his. name  presented  "  for  the 
consideration  of  the  National  Democratic  Convention,"  and 
if  he  found  him  to  stand  a  reasonable  for  an  election  to  con- 
tinue to  do  so;  but  if  not,  then  to  vote  for  Col.  Jefferson 
Davis.  Mr.  Wray  gave  my  vote  for  Col.  King  on  the  1st 
ballot,  and  finding  him  to  have  no  earthly  chance  of  success, 


39 

changed  it  to  Gen.  Quitman,*  on  the  2d  ballot.  Mr.  YTrny 
found  Col.  Davis  not  at  all  likely  to  si$fce'ed,and;  acting  in  ttfo 
spirit  of  my  instructions  to  him,  voted  for  Gen.  Quitman — i 
vote  which  met,  for  the  reasons  assigned,  my  cordial  appro- 
bation ;  though  I  had  a  strong  desire  to  evince  by  my  vote 
my  approbation  of  the  great  merit  of  Jefferson  Davis  as  a 
true  republican  and  a  gallant  soldier,  and  my  esteem  for  'him 
as  a  high  toned  gentleman. 

I  have  been  charged  with  violating  my  ''instructions''  in 
having  my  votes  cast  for  Quitman  on  the  2d  ballot. 

A  reference  to  the  official  proceedings  of  the  Convention 
will  £bow  that  the  delegates  received  no  instructions  as  to  the 
Vice  Presidency. 

In  the  first  place  they  will  show,  that  if  there  is  the  least 
truth,  in  the  miserable  .apology  given  by  some  for  not  consi- 
dering the  instructions  binding — that  they  were  passed  late 
at  night,  when  most  of  the  members  had  left,  it  bears  v.  hh 
double  the  force  on  the  resolution  recommending  Col.  King  ; 
as  that  was  introduced  more  than  two  hours  after  the  resolu- 
tions of  instructions  were  !  I  only  mention  this  to  show  tin: 
dilemma  into  which  the  tergiversations  of  the  opponents  of 
these  instructions  will  lead  them. 

The  resolution  giving  instruction  to  the  delegation  was  a 
part  of  the  series  reported  by  the  committee  and  amended  by 
the  Convention,  and  referred  to  no  other  resolution  adopted 
by  the  Convention.  After  that  was  disposed  of,  and  other 
matter  also,  Mr.  Terry  introduced  trie  following  resolution  : 

. ,':  Resolved,  That  this  Convention  do  unanimous!}'  and  earnestly  recom- 
mended to  the  consideration  of  the  National  Democratic  Convention  at 
Baltwnore,  the  name  of  our  distinguished  fellow  citizen,  Hon.  W.  R.  Kiug, 
a?  eminently  qualified,  by  his  abilities,  by  his  experience,  and  his  services 
to.  the  country,  for  .the  oiiice  of  Vice  President  of  the  U.  S." 

It,  will  be  seen  that  there  is  no  instruction  attached  to  it. 
It  was  not  a  part  of  that  series  which  was  made  instructions. 
It  is  a  mere  recommendation — (hat  the  name  of  Col.  King 
he  considered.  It  was  so  considered  ;  and  when  ne  was  re- 
ceiving the  pitiful  support,  of  but  eight  votes  out  of  294  on 
the*  2d  ballot,  and  had  been  abandoned  by  all  his  friends  from 
other  States  but  one,  Mr.  Wray  and  myself  did  not  conceive 

*  In  the  official  account  of  the  balloting,  eight  votes  are  put  down  a.s 
given  to  Col.  King  on  the  2d  ballot — all  from  Alabama.  This  is  an  error, 
Alabama  had  but  nine  votes — and  the  votes  of  Mr.  Wray  and  myself  \veja 
given  to  Gen.  Quitman  on  that  ballot. 


that  we  were  bound  to  continue  "the  consideration"  of  a 
matter  which  we  were  not  instructed  to  press — and  which 
had  no  chance  of  success  ;  hence  we  voted  for  one,  of  whom 
Alabama  had,ihrough  her  press,  expressed  a  decided  approval. 
Gen,  Butler  was  nominated  on  the  2d  ballot. 

This  statement,  sustained  by  the  record,  exhibits  the  true 
estimate  to  be  put  upon  the  remarks  of  Mr.  M.  A.  King  (one 
of  the  delegates)  upon  my  course,  made  in  a  recent  public 
meeting  in  Madison,  in  the  official  account  of  which  it  is 
stated  that  he  "assailed  Mr.  Yancey's  position  with  great 
severity" — and  among  other  charges  of  a  kindred  stamp, 
asserted  that  I  was  guilty  "of  refusing  to  vole  for  Col.  Win. 
R.  King,  throughout  the  balloting  for  the  Vice  Presidency." 

I  submit  that  "  the  great  severity"  which  characterized  the 
charge  is  a  matter  to  be  felt  more  by  the  speaker  than  by  any 
one  else.* 

It  is  perhaps  due  to  candor  to  say  that  I  cast  a  vote  for  Col. 
King  with  some  reluctance.  I  did  so  entirely  in  deference  to 
"the  recommendation"  of  the  Convention.  I  knew  in  the 
first  place,  that  the  Terry  resolution,  recommending  Col.  King, 

*  Since  the  report  of  what  Mr.  King  said  on  that  occasion  appeared 
in  the  Huntsville  Democrat,  a  card  from  the  gentleman  has  appeared  in 
the  same  paper — giving  this  correction — 

11 I  distinctly  said  and  regret  under  the  circumstances,  I  was  misunder- 
stood by  the  reporter,  that  Mr.  Yancey  disobeyed  the  spirit  of  the  resolu- 
tion, unanimously  adopted  by  the  State  Convention,  instructing  the  dele- 
gation to  vote  for  Col.  Win.  It.  King,  tor  the  Vice  Presidency,  and  to  use 
all  honorable  means  to  secure  his  nomination.  It  is  true  Mr.  Yancey 
voted  for  Col.  King  on  the  1st  and  2d  ballots,  and  I  so  stated  ;  but  Mr. 
Wray.  iiis  colleague,  arose  in  the  Convention  and  asked  leave  to  withdraw 
his  and  Mr.  Y.'s  vote  ;  and  neither  of  them  ever  afterwards  voted  for  Col. 
King." 

The  above  may  he  a  correction  of  such  remarks  of  Mr.  King  as  the 
secretary  of  the  meeting  had  reported — but  it  is  as  little  entitled  to  credit 
as  a  statement  of  facts,  as  the  report  made  by  the  secretary. 

It  is  not  a  fact,  that  there  was  a  c;  resolution,  unanimously  adopted  by 
the  State  Convention,  instructing  the  delegation  to  vote  for  Col.  Wm.  R. 
King  for  the  Vice  Presidency." — It  is  not  a  fact  that  I  "  voted  for  Col. 
King"  on  the  "  2d  ballot."     On  that  ballot  my  vote  was  cast  for  Quitman. 

It  is  not  a  fact  that  "  Mr.  Wrav  asked  leave  to  withdraw  his  and  Mr. 
Y.'s  vote."  Some  one,  unauthorized  asl  am  assured  by  Mr.  Wray,  cast 
our  votes  for  Col.  King  on  the  2d  ballot — and  Mr.  Wray  merely  cor-rected 
the  vote.  Neither  is  it.  a  fact  (as Mr. King  would  have  it  to  be  deduced  from 
his  statement)  that  there  was  any  other  ballot  ing  for  Vice  Presidency — And. 
yet  Mr.  Kingsavs — "  neither  of  them  ever  afterwards  voted  for  Col.  Kins;  l'* 
"The  2d  was  the  List  ballot ! 


61 

had  been  carried  about  to  different  members  of  the  conven- 
tion— and  that  the  main  ground  upon  which  its  friends  advo- 
cated its  passage  was,  that  Col.  King  had  been  signally 
defeated  by  Mr.  Lewis  a  short  time  before  in  his  canvass  for 
the  Senate,  and  that  this  resolution  was  intended  to  be  a 
salvo  to  his  feelings — and  nothing  more. 

The  matter  was  so  spoken  of  to  me,  and  my  opposition 
was  deprecated  on  that  ground.  I  at  the  time  refused  to  vote 
for  the  resolution.  Afterwards,  however,  the  resolutions  of 
instructions  having  been  unanimously  adopted,  many  gentle- 
men who  had  determined  to  oppose  it,  in  common  with  my- 
self, agreed  to  permit  the  resolution  to  pass,  unopposed. 

In  the  second  place,  I  felt  confident  that  Alabama  would  be 
throwing  away  her  vote,  if  cast  for  Col.  King  ;  and  the  result 
proved  upon  what  good  grounds  the  conviction  was  based — ■ 
Col.  King  receiving  but  26  votes  on  1st  ballot  and  but  seven 
on  the  2d,  out  of  the  294  votes  in  that  body  ! 

THE    NOMINATION     OF     GEN.    CASS     CONSIDERED,    APART    FROM 
THE    INSTRUCTIONS    OF    THE    STATE    CONVENTION. 

But  considering  the  nomination  of  Gen.  Cass  apart  from 
instructions,  is  he  entitled  to  my  support  ?  I  have  considered 
that  part  cf  the  issue,  with  all  the  deliberation  and  candor 
which  the  opinions  of  so  very  large  a  portion  of  my  Demo- 
cratic fellow  citizens  in  the  State,  who  support  Gen.  Cass, are 
entitled  to  at  my  hands,  and  I  have  come  to  the  conclusion 
that,  simply  in  the  light  of  Democratic  issues,  Gen.  Cass  is 
one  of  that  class  of  statesmen  which  has  heretofore  been  re- 
pudiated by  our  National  Conventions. 

On  the  doctrine  of  Internal  Improvements  by  the  general 
government,  no  man  could  be  selected  out  of  the  list  of 
statesmen,  Whig  or  Democratic,  aspiring  to  the  Presidency, 
who  holds  views  more  antagonistic  to  those  so  long  promul- 
gated by  the  Democratic  party— both  of  this  State,  and  of  the 
United  States  in  their  National  Conventions.  Since  1S2S, 
this  State  has  ever  held  opposition  to  the  system  of  internal 
improvements  by  the  genera!  government,  to  be  one  oi  the 
cardinal  points  of  the  Democratic  faith.  Our  General  Assem- 
bly has  repeatedlv  passed  joint  resolutions  against  the  enact- 
ment of  such  laws.  Our  State  Conventions  have  repeatedly 
adopted  resolutions  condemning  it  in  no  measured  terms. 
The  Democracy  has  ever  held — that  no  man  could  be  unsound 


6$. 

Upon  any  one  of  the  great  points  of  the  Democratic  creed — icy 
Wit :  1.  The  raising  of  revenue;  2.  The  keeping  of  the  re- 
venue; 3.  The  distribution  of  revenue — without  being  un- 
sound upon  all.  If  he  was  for  high  taxes  and  latge  revenue, 
it  has  been  well  contended,  he  would  rear  up  an  interest 
which  would  struggle  for  a  Bnik,  which  would  keep  and  use. 
that  revenue,  aud  pay  it  out  in  its  own  bills— and  also  an  in- 
terest which  would  demand  the  expenditure  of  the  surplus, 
which  existed  after  the  paying  the  expenses  of  government, 
in  improving  certain  sections'  of  the  country— by  building 
roads,  canals,  harbors,  &c,  And,  vice  versa,  if  he  was  an 
advocate  of  internal  improvements,  they  would  necessari'y 
bihig  in  their  train  increased  taxes  to  meet  the  extra  expen- 
diture ;  and  a  craving  vitiated  appetite  for  more  money,  which 
would  grow  and  increase,  as  its  demands  were  complied  with, 
Holding  these  views,  tire  National  Democratic  Convention 
has  ever  passed,  at  ah  its  sktings,  the  following  resolution  : 

"That  the  Constitution  docs  not  confer  upon  the  general  government 
the  power  to  commence  and  carry  on  a  general  system  of  internal  im-- 
provements." 

And,  acting  in  good  faith  to  the  principle,  the  Democracy 
have  heretofore  invariably,  without  a  single  exception  since 
General  Jackson  vetoed  bills  of  this  character-,  selected  candi- 
dates for  President  sound  upon  it,  and  who  have  vetoed  all 
bills  of  the  kind.  It  is  true  that,  the  Western  Democracy 
have  not  acted  in  good  faith  to  the  principle  ;  and  the  .conse-*' 
que  nee  has  been  that  bills  for  internal  improvement,  by  the 
combined  forces  of  WHfigs  and  recreant  Democrats,  have 
been  passed  through  bom  houses  of  Congress,  aud  our  sole 
protection  Jhas  been  the  soundness  and  firmness  of  our  Demo- 
cratic Presidents  who  have  vetoed  them. 

It  was  in  reference  to  this  slate  of  things,  that  the  late  State 
Convention  unanimously  adopted  the  following — (a  part  of 
the  2d  resoluiiou)  as  congratulatory  of  the  dei'eal  of  these 
unconstitutional  schemes—  ' 

^RrsohrJ,  That  the  fruits  of  the  great  political  triumph  oi  1844,  which 
•elevated  the  present  chief  magistrate  to  the  Presidency,  have  fulfilled  the 
hopes  of  the  Democracy  of  the  Union,  .  *  ;;c  *  :;':  through 
the  veto  of  the  President  firmly  execated,  against  an  enormous  pressure 
of  interests,  in  checking  the  lendencyof  Congress  to  enter  upon  a  lavis! 
pystc-rh  of  unconstitutional  Internal  Improvements/'' 

.    And  it   was   particularly  in  reference   to   this,  that  at  my 
.instance,  the  usual  resolution  passed    by  the  National   Pern-' 


orfitic     Convention     relative      to   the     veto     power,    was 
amended  by  the  addition  of  the  last  clause.     I  insert  it  here: 

1;  Re--:ilreil,  That  we  are  decidedly  opposed  to  taking  from  the  Preside  i  t 
t;ii.  ;  i;dif;!':l  veto  power,  by  which  lie  is  enabled,  under  restrictions  and 
f  's^u'sibihiies  amply  sufficient  to  guard  the  public  interest,  to  suspend'the 
pns.-age  of  a  bill  whose  merits  ca'unot  secure  the  approval  of  two-thirds 

,..■•  Senate  and  ilousu  of  Representatives  until  the  judgment  of  the 
people  can  be  obtained  thereon,  and  which  has  saved  the  American  peo- 
ple  iron;  the  corrupt  and  tyrannical  domination  of  the  Sank  of  the  United 
States,  and  from  a  corrupting  system  of  general  internal  improvements." 

President  Polk,  by  his  firmness  in  the  exercise  of  the  veto 
saved  the  country,  from  the  vast  expenditure  contemplated  by 
the  ll  River  and  Harbor  Bill"  (Jen.  Cass  voted  for  that  bid 
*fr-(;S.e§  Con.  Globe,  1  ses.29t/i  Con.,//.  11  SO. 

Jilr.  Polk  sent  in  his  veto  of  the  bill,  to  the  house  in  which 
it  originated,  on  the  3d  of  August,  1-840.  He  argued  at  great 
length,  and  with  great  ability  the  unconstitutionality  of  the 
bib.  He  also  presented  another  objection,  which  not  having 
been  regarded  by  its  friends,  shows  how  bent  they  are  upon 
carrying  out  this  system,  at  all  hazards  —  a  disregard  of  ail 
reasonable  obstacles.  JMr.  Polk  said,  »'  It  appropriates  be- 
tween one  and  two  millions  of  dollars  for  objects  which  are 
of  no  pressing  necessity ;  atid  this  is  proposed  at  a  lime  when 
the  country  is  engaged  in  a  foreign  war.  and  when  Congress 
at  its  present  session,  has  authorized  a  loan,  on  the  issue  of 
treasury  notes,  to  defray  the  expenses  of  the  war,  to  be  re- 
j-orted  to,  if  the  exigencies  of  the  government  shall  require  it. 
It  would  seem  to  be  wise,  too,  to  abstain  from  such  expendi- 
tures with  a  view  to  avoid  the  accumulation  of  a  large  public 
del  I  :  the  existence  of  which  would  be  opposed  to  the  inter- 
ests of  our  people,  as  well  as  to  the  genius  of  our  free  iusii- 
tmious." — S'ee  Con.  Globe,  1  ses .  I'Jlh  Con. p.  11S1-2. 

Opposed  to  the  principles  laid  down  by  President  Polk,  and 
not  deterred  by  the  fact  tint  the  government  was  at  war,  and 
that- it  had  been  compelled  to  borrow  tioenty-thrce  millions 
In  curry  on  the  tour,  and  therefore  could  not,  in  justice  to 
itself,- wit  ho  at  referring  to  the  constitution,  appropriate  mil- 
lions of  dollars  for  purposes  for  which,  as  Mr.  Polk  said 
'•  there  was  no,  pressing  necessity/'  Gen.  Cass  at  the  very 
next  session  of  Congress  voted  for  a  similar  harbor  and  liver 
hill,  appropriating  over  half  a  million  of  dollars  for  the  r 
improvement ! — (Sec  Con.  Globe,  2  ses.  2lJ/h  Con. p.  571. J 

Mr.  Polk  again  had  the  nerve  ik  against  an  enormous  pre.-:- 


€4 

sure  of  interests/'  to  veto  the  unconstitutional  measure. — 
(See  Con.  Globe,  1  ses.  30th  Con.  p.  30. ) 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that  Gen  Cass  has  voted  for  these 
bills,  which  ouv  State  Convention  has  denominated  "  a  lavish 
system  of  unconstitutional  internal  improvements" — and 
which  the  National  Democratic  Convention  denounced  as  "'a 
corrupting  sjstem  of  general  internal  improvements,"  as  well 
as  unconstitutional.  It  will  be  seen  too  that  he  has  voted  for 
them  in  utter  disregard  of  the  condition  of  the  treasury — 
when  there  was  not  only  no  money  there,  but  when  we 
were  driven  to  the  necessity  of  borrowing  "twenty-three 
millions  of  dollars"  (see  Mr.  Polk's  2d  veto) — and  therefore 
when,  the  appropriation  if  made,  would  have  to  be  paid  out 
of  the  loan.  Well  indeed  might  I  say  that  he  "  advocated 
the  doctrine  in  its  wildest  and  most  unconstitutional  sense;" 
and  well  indeed  might  my  venerable  friend  Chancellor  Clarke, 
say — (though  not  intending  it  in  that  light  1) — that  *  this  doc- 
rrine,  at  this  time,  when" the  country  has  no  money  to  spare 
for  such  purposes,  may  be  considered  as  nothing  but  an  ab- 
straction." Had  it  not  been  for  the  veto,  it  would  have 
been  an  abstraction  from  the  people's  treasury  to  the  amount 
of  over  two  millions  of  dollars  ! 

For  the  first  lime  then  in  the  history  of  the  Democratic 
party,  it  has  selected  a  man  unsound  on  this  great  cardinal 
principle — the  only  one  of  the  three  cardinal  points,  which 
that  party  has  not  yet  successfully  carried  out  in  all  the 
branches  of  government,  both  legislative  and  executive  —  the 
only  open  one  therefore  of  the  three.  If  he  shall  be  elected, 
we  shall  be  at  the  mercy  of  men,  on  this  point,  who  would 
not  regard  the  necessities  of  the  country  in  their  eager  desire 
to  break  into  the  treasury:  for  not  only  is  Congress,  as  it  has 
always  been  against  us,  on  that  principle,  but  we  have  a  can- 
didate, who  if  elected  will  not  veto  such  bills — but  will  cor- 
dially approve  them. 

I  have  been  told  however,  that  Gen.  Cass  has  accepted  the 
nomination,  and  in  his  letter  said — "  I  have  carefullly  read 
the  resolutions  of  the  Democratic  National  Convention,  lay- 
ing down  the  platform  of  our  political  faith,  and  I  adhere  to 
them  as  firmly  as  I  approve  them  cordially.  And-while  thus 
adhering  to  them,  I  shall  do  so  with  a  sacred  regard  to  "  the 
principles  and  compromises  of  the  constitution." 

His  approval  then  is  qualified  by  his  views  "  of  the  prin- 
ciples and  compromises  of    the  constitution/'      What  are 


65 

those  views  which  will  actuate  him,  "while  thus  adhering  to 
them'*? 

It  will  be  well  worth  the  attention  of  the  voter,  not  to  con- 
Sue  himself  to  the  above  single,  general,  paragraph,  but  10 
look  at  other  significant  sentences  in  the  same  letter — for  in- 
stance this : 

"  This  letter,  gentlemen,  closes  my  profession  of  political  faith.  Re- 
ceiving my  first  appointment  from  that  pure  patriot  and  great  expounder 
of  American  democracy,  Mr.  Jefferson,  more  than  forty  years  ago,  the  in- 
tervening period  of  my  life  has  been  almost  .wholly  passed  in  the  service 
of  my  country,  and  has  been  marked  by  many  vicisitudes  and  attended 
with  many  trying  circumstances  both  in  peace  and  war.  If  my  conduct 
in  these  situations  and  the  opinions  I  have,  been  called  upon  to  form  and  ex- 
press f.om  time  to  time  in  relation  to  all  the  great  party  topics  of  the  day,  do 
not  furnish  a  clear  exposition  of  my  vieivs  respecting  them,  and  at  the  same 
timed  sufficient  pledge  of  my  faithful  adherence  to  their  practical  application, 
-whenever  or  icherever  I  may  he  required  to  act,  anything  further  I  might  ao.o 
say  would  be  mere  delusion,  unworthy  of  myself,  and  justly  offensive  to  the 
great  party,  in  whose  name  you  are  now  acting" 

We  are  thus  told  by  Gen.  Cass  himself,  not  to  notice  "  any 
thing  further  he  may  now  say" — It  "would  be  mere  delusion," 
if  in  conflict  with  his  "conduct"  and  his"  opinions" for  more 
than  "  forty  years."  They  furnish,  as  he  well  says,  "a  clear 
exposition  of  his  views"  respecting  "  the  great  party  topics  of 
the  day" — and  to  them  will  every  voter  look,  who  desires  to 
vote  for  his  country  and  his  principles — and  not  to  cast  a 
mere  party  vote.  That  "conduct"  and  those  "opinions" 
qualify  his  letter  upon  the  Baltimore  resolutions — and  that 
"conduct"  and  those  "opinions"  he  tells  us,  give  "sufficient 
pledge  of  his  faithful  adherence  to  their  practical  applica- 
tion." 

HOW    WESTERN    MEN    CONSTRUE    "  THE    PLATFORM." 

It  may  serve  to  illustrate  the  great  practical  convenience 
which  distinguishes  the  conscience  of  a  western  politician  to 
state  a  little,  but  quite  significant,  occurrence  in  committee  on 
resolutions.  As  soon  as  the  resolution  on  internal  improve- 
ments and  that  on  the  veto  power  were  finally  adopted,  some 
one  observed  to  a  western  member — "  How  can  you  and  Caes 
get  over  that  ?  " — '•'  Oh  !  "  said  he  "  there  is  no  difficulty — we 
are  not  in  favor  of  "  a  corrupt"  or  of  an  "unconstitutional 
system  of  internal  improvements.  The  thing  don't  apply  to 
us  at  all  !" 

I  have  before  me,  the  12th  number  of  Mr.  Medary's  "Cam- 

E 


6G 

paign  Statesman",  of  Ohio,  devoted  to  the  election  of  Gen. 
Cass.  He  is  defending  the  General  from  the  charge  made  by 
the  Whigs— that  Cass,  by  his  letter  showed  himself  to  be  op- 
posed to  internal  improvements.     In   the  article  the  editor 

says : — 

"  The  first  bill,  for  this  object,  vetoed  by  Mr.  Polk,  was  voted  for  by 
Gen.  Cass.  The  next  session  Gen.  Cass,  again  voted  for  the  bill  which 
passed,  but  which  was  again  vetoed  by  the  President.  No  man  has  been 
more  consistent — no  man  lias  shown  more  interest  in  this  matter,  than  the 
very  man  now  charged  to  be  hostile  to  the  improvement  of  the  waters  of 
the  "west." 

In  the  same  paper  is  an  account  of  the  reception  of  Gen. 
Cass  at  Cleavland. — A  blunt-spoken  Democrat  received  the 
General,  and  told  him  that  his  enemies  were  slandering  him, 
suiet  circulating  that  he  was  in  favor  of  the  extension  of  sla- 
very— and  opposed  to  internal  improvements.  The  frank- 
spoken  voter  demanded  of  the  General  to  give  the  lie  to  those 
slanders,  at  that  time.  These  were  posers.  But  the  General 
knew  how  to  get  round  these  matters.  He  replied  with 
great  dignity  : 

'•  Sib  :  The  noise  and  confusion  which  pervades  this  vast  assembly  will, 
I  apprehend)  prevent  me  from  being  distinctly  heard  by  all  present.  I  ean 
do. but  little  more,  sir,  at  this  time,  than  return  my  thanks'  for  the  very 
v,  ami  and  flattering  reception  which  the  citizens  of  Cleveland  have  given 
me.  *•„;».**        '"'*  You  have  made  some  allusions,  sir,  to 

principles  and  measures  which  agitate  the  public  mind.  I  can  but  refer 
you  to  my  votes  as  recorded  and  sentiments  as  heretofore  expressed,  up- 
on these  questions.  My  acts  for  the  last  forty  years  are  before  the  people, 
mid  if  these  are  not  sufficient  to  satisfy  the  public,. all  that  I  can  advance 
row  will  be  mere  delusions." 

Gen.  Cuss  does  not  refer  the  enquirer  in  Ohio  to  his  letter 

but  io  his  votes  !     We  must  take  the  General  at  his  word  — 

judge  of  him  by  his  "  votes  as  recorded,  and  sentiments  as 

'heretofore    expressed" — Anything   else   would    indeed  "-be 

mere  delusions." 

THE    SLAVERY    QUESTION. 

Gen.  Cass  must  be  judged  as  to  this  issue  by  his  letter  to 
Mr.  Nicholson,  already  freely  quoted  from,  and  not  by  the 
Baltimore  resolutions — for  lie.  goes  farther  in  the  assertion  of 
correct  principles  than  those,  resolutions  do  ;  though  at  ihe 
sa-me  time  he  premulgates  unsound  opinions,  which  those 
resolutions  do  not.  The  positions  taken  by  him  in  that  letter 
y.re: 


%.  Congress  has  no-  power  to  interfere  with  slavery  in 
the  States. 

2.  Congress  has  no  power  to  interfere  with  slavery  in  the 
territories. 

3.  The  duty  of  Congress  "should  be  limited  to  the  creation 
of  proper  governments  for  new  countries*  acquired  or 
settled,  and  to  the  necessary  provision  for  their  eventual 
admission  into  the  Union  ;  leaving,  in  the  'mean  time., 
to  the  people  inhabiting  them  to  regulate  their  internal 
concerns  in  their  own  way." 

4.  In  the  territory  (which  we  have  acquired)  beyond  the 
Rio  Grande,  and  east  of  the  Rocky  Mountains — the 
Mexican  law,  which  abolished  slavery  in  those  limits, 
is   recognized  by  him  to  be  the  law  of  the  inhabitants, 

.  until  repealed,  by  Congress. 

5.  He  recognizes  the  mixed  race  of  inhabitants  of  that  ter- 
ritory, who  under  Mexican  rule  held  "  the  government 
and  most  of  the  offices  in  their  possession,"  and  who  are 
a  ''colored  race"  which  "  preponderates  in  the  ratio  of 
ten  to  one  over  the  whites,"  as  citizens  under  the  rule 
of  the  United  Slates:  and  that  ihis  "colored  population, 
among  whom  the  negro  does,  not  belong  socially  to 
a  degraded  race,"  will  have  the  right  and  power  to  per- 
mit or- "not  permit  the  enslavement  of  any  portion  of 
the  colored  race." 

The  first  two  opinions  it  is  conceded,  by  both  sides,  that 
he  clearly  expresses  in  his  letter. 

The  others  are  disputed.  The  third  opinion  attributed  to 
him,  is  in  his  own  language— a  part  of  his  own  letter — and 
is  so  precise,  that  it  would  be  exceedingly  difficult,  it  seems 
to  me,  to  doubt  its  meaning.  He  says  Congress  must  confine 
itself  to  certain  acts,  and-  must  provide  for  the  admission  of 
these  new  countries,  "  eventually'''  into  the  Union.  It  is  clear 
that  he  speaks  of  I  hem  before  that  event  has  occurred — 
while  yet  they  are  territories  and  under  the  limited  jurisdic- 
tion of  Congress.  But  having  laid  down  the  limited  sphere 
in  which  Congress  may  act,  he  in  the  next  sentence  proceeds 
upon  the  idea,  that  there  are  powers,  which  being  denied  to 
Congress,  may  be  exercised  by  others—"  Leaving  in  the 
meantime"  he  says — What  is  the  "  ?neantime  ?  " — The  in- 
terim—the interval  of  time,  certainly,  between  the  first  "  ea- 
tion  of  proper  governments  for  new  territories,"  and  that 
^eventual  admission  into  the  Union,"  spoken  of  in  the  sen- 


6S 

tence— "  Leaving  in  the  meantime,  to  the  people  inhabiting 
them,  to  regulate  their  internal  concerns  in  their  own  way" — 
leaving  to  them,  while  yet  inhabitants  of  a  territory,  power, 
which  he  concedes  Congress  cannot  exercise — the  power  of 
excluding  slavery  from  their  limits  ;  [for  that  is  the  issue  upon 
which  he  is  arguing— those  the  "  internal  concerns"  which  he 
leaves  "to  the  inhabitants"  to  regulate.]  This  is  rendered 
clear  and  indisputable  by  the  very  next  sentence. — "  They 
are  just  as  capable  of  doing  so  as  the  people  of  the  Stales  ; 
and  they  can  do  so,  at  any  rate,  as  soon  as  their  political  in- 
dependence is  recognized  by  admission  into  the  Union." 
*  In  that  sentence  he  compares  the  power  of  the  people  in 
two  of  their  stages  of  existence — to  wit  :  when  people  of  a 
territory  and  when  people  of  a  Stale  ;  and  he  Jays  down 
that  the  former,  on  this  subject,  "are  just  as  capable"  of 
regulating  it  as  the  latter. 

But  ivho  are  these  "  inhabitants,"  who  are  thus  to  be  em- 
powered by  Gen.  Cass,  •'  to  regulate  their  internal  concerns — 
(that  of  the  new  territory)  in  their  own  ivay." 

This  is  a  serious  question,  because  our  people  have  so  much 
confidence  in  their  own  indomitable  energy  that  they,  like 
Jackson's  Kentucky  Riflemen,  ''are  not  scared  at  trifles" — 
and  might  not  mind  an  ordinary  obstacle. 

Gen.  Cass,  in  the  same  letter,  defines  who  those  "  inhabi- 
tants" will  be — 

In  speaking  of  "any  new  acquisition"  of  territory  by.  us, 
and  the  prospect  of  the  extension  of  slavery"  over  it,  he 
says — "  But  can  it  go  there  ?  This  may  well  be  doubled,  &c. 
The  inhabitants  of  those  regions,  whether  they  depend  on 
their  ploughs  or  their  herds  cannot  be  slaveholders."  He 
continues  his  views  thus:  "  In  the  able  letter  of  Mr.  Buchanan, 
upon  this  subject,  not  long  since  given  to  the  public,  he  pre- 
sents similar  considerations  ivilh  great  force." 

"  Should  we  acquire  territory  beyond  the  Rio  Grande,  and 
east  of  the  Rocky  Mountains,  it  is  still  more  impossible  that 
amajority  of  the  people  would  consent  to  re-establish  slavery. 
They  are  themselves  a  colored  population,  and  among  them 
the  negroe  does  not  belong  socially  to  a  degraded  race." 

This,  with  the  extract  from  that  portion  of  the  letter  to  be 
"found  on  page  12,  shows  clearly  that  the  fifth  opinion  attri- 
buted by  me  to  Gen.  Cass  is  correct.     He  calls  this  "colored 
race" — "  the  people."     He  endorses  "  similar  considerations" 
urged  by  Mr.  Walker  and  Mr.  Buchanan — t hat  these  *>  people" 


69 

—this  "  colored  population"  who  do  not  hold  \"  the  negroe" 
to  be  of  a  degraded  race,  "  will  not  permit  the  enslavement" 
of  negroes — that  in  fact  they  hold  "  the  government  and  most 
of  the  offices."  No  where  in  that  letter  is  the  power  denied 
to  such  a  race  to  sit  in  jurisdiction  over  what  shall  or  shall 
not  be  the  institutions  of  the  territory,  which  Southern  blood 
has  enriched  and  sanctified  to  the  uses  of  Southern  citizens — 
which  Southern  blood  and  treasure  has  secured  as  property, 
which  belongs  to  them,  in  common  with  other  free  white 
citizens  of  this  Union  ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  the  principle  is 
laid  down,  and  contended  for  as  an  argument  in  favor  of  his 
position — that  "  slavery  will  not  pass  the  Rio  Grande  !  " 

It  is  said  in  excuse,  however,  for  this  opinion  of  Gen.  Cass, 
that,  who  will  be- Me  people  there,  is  a  matter  of  law  over 
which  Gen.  Cass  can  exercise  no  control !  Grant  it ;  and  it 
leaves  him  in  this  position  — 

Knowing  who  these  people  are — and  that  law  will  give 
them  the  right  to  citizenship,*  he  advances  opinions,  which, 
if  generally  adopted,  will  throw  all  our  rights  of  removing  to 
and  residing  in  those  territories  upon  the  good  will  or  other- 
wise of  such  a  race  ! 

While  he  denies  to  Congress  the  right  to  sit  in  judgment  on 
our  rights,  he  yeilds  that  right  to  ''  these  colored  races"  of  the 
neiv  territories  ! 

It  is  of  this  we  complain.  It  is  bad  enough  for 'our  peo- 
ple to  have  the  prospect  of  contending  with  such  a  race  in 
a  convention,  if  lata  shall  so  decree  it :  it  is  too  bad  to  throw 
us  into  contention  with  them  at  the  moment  they  are  ceded 
to  us — and  when,  if  Gen.  Cass'  opinions  prevail,  they  shall 
have  Mexican  law  as  their  ally  in  the  contest. 

The  practical  application  of  such  principles  would  show 
this  state  of  things  : — 

California  and  New  Mexico  are  now  teiritory  of  the  United 
States — "  The  inhabitants  of  them,"  would  meet  to  consider 
about  a  "regulation,'' that  slavery  shall  not  be  permitted  in 
those  territories — "  The  colored  population,"  who  in  those 
territories  hold  most  of  the  offices  and  "  preponderate  in  the 
ratio  of  ten  to  one  over  the  whites,"  will  have  an  overwhelm- 
ing majority.  They  do  not.  look  upon  a  negroe  as  belonging 
to  a  degraded  race,  and  consequently  they  will  vote  in  favor 
of  the  regulation  and  carry  it.     The  territory  then,  though  of 

*  The  Treaty  for  which  Gen.  Cass  voted  secures  to  them  that  right.    . 


70 

vast  extent,  sufficient  to  form  twelve  States  as  large  as  Ala- 
bama, and  rich  in  mines  of  gold  and  silver— though  abundant 
in  productions  of  wheat  and  oats  and  covered  with  herds  of 
cattle,  will  thus  be  sealed  forever  against  the  emigration 
thither  of  any  southern  man,  with  his  slave  property.  And 
in  time,  when  they  become  sufficiently  populous  to  be  carved 
into  states,  non-slaveholding  states  will  be  carved  out  of 
them  ;  and  the  South  be  thus  surrounded  by  that  terrible 
"cordon  of  free  states"  which  is  looked  forward  to  with  so 
much  hope  by  the  Northern  politician  and  so  much  anxiety 
by  the  Southern—the  time,  when  the  non-slaveholding  states 
will  number  two-thirds  of  the  states  of  the  Union,  and  can 
alter  the  constitution  to  suit  their  sectional  purposes. 

The  fourth  position  which  I  have  said  Gen.  Cass  had 
assumed  in  his  Nicholson  letter  is,  that  the  municipal  law  of 
Mexico  abolishing  all  slavery,  throughout  that  republic,  will 
remain  the  law  of  California  and  New  Mexico  until  repealed 
by  Congress.  He  puts  forth  this  doctrine  in  quoting,  with 
great  approval,  the  remarks  of  Mr.  Walker. 

There  are  many  others,  even  at  the  South,  who  entertain 
that  opinion.  Nothing  can  be  more  erroneous  :  at  least  as 
far  as  applicable  to  this  subject. 

The  decisions  of  our  supreme  courts  are  in  reference  merely 
to  individual  rights  of  property.  Whatever  was  property  in 
California  and  New  Mexico  before  the  treaty  according  to 
these  decisions,  will  remain  so  after  the  treatv.  What  was  a 
good  titlfi  to  land,  will  still  be  a  good  title.  If  a  negroe  there 
was  free,  no  one  can  now  enslave  him.  What  was  law  will 
remain  law,  as  far  as  those  inhabitants  are  concerned  who 
lived  there  before  the  territory  became  ours,  if  not  inconsist- 
ent ivith  the  sovreignty  of  the  States  of  this  Confederacy . 
Our  courts  have  merely  acted  upon  the  question,  as  a  property 
one — not  as  a  high  political  question.  Gen.  Cass  asserts  the 
doctrine  to  be  true  as  a  political  one.  He  says  "  Slavery  wil 
not  pass  the  Rio  Grande  :  not  only  because  it  is  forbidden 
by  law,"  but  because  the  inhabitants  there  "  will  not  permit 
the  enslavement  of  any  portion  of  the  colored  race." 

The  question  then  is — "  Shall  the  Mexican  law,  abolishing 
slavery,  be  the  law  of  California  and  New  Mexico  ? " 
Clearly  not. 

1.  Because  this  would  recognize  the  doctrine  that  Congress 
can  have  jurisdiction  over  the  question — Congress  having 
power   to  revise  and  veto  the  laws  of  a  territory—ami 


71 

vf  Mexican  law  is  to  prevail  until  repealed,  Congress 
must  interfere  to  restore  the  territory  to  a  constitutional 
condition— -a  territory  open  to  every  citizen  with  his  pro- 
perty of  every  kind. 

2.  Because  this'would  be  in  conflict  with  the'  constitutional 
doctrine— that  a  treaty  .is  the  supreme  law  of  the  land, 
and  that  the  territory  is  property,  held  by  the  United 
States,  in  trust  for  the" citizens  of  the  States,  who  have 
equal  rights  there.  If  Mexican  law,  forbidding  slavery, 
remains  the  law,  the  territory  is  at  no  single  moment,  the 
common  property  of  the  States  open  to  every  citizen  to 
settle  in  with  his  property  ;  but  it  is  shut  up  against  the 
citizens  of  one  half  of  the  States  ;  and  thus  would  their 
constitutional  rights  be  made  subservient  to  a  law  of 
Mexico — which  they  had  no  part  in  framing;  and  thus 
would  the  treaty,  which  is  supreme  law  by  our  constitu- 
tion, and  which  under  the  constitution  acquires  territory 
as  the  common  property  of  all,  be  divested  of  its  supre- 
macy and  be  made  to  yeild  to  the  law  of  the  conquered 
power. 

3.  Because  this  principle  would  allow  of  the  introduction 
into  our  confederacy  of  varied  political  privileges  and  dis- 

*       abilities  at   war  with  the   constitution   and  our   bill   ot 
rights.     For  instance — the  law  establishing  the  Catholic 
religion  as  the   only  mode  in    which   God  may  be  wor- 
shipped,' would  prevail  there — military  despotism  would 
be  in   the  ascendant  there — the  writ,  of  habeas  corpus, 
and  trial  by  jury,  so  necessary  to  the  protection  of  the 
liberty  of  the  ciiizen,  would  be  unknown  ;  for  there  are 
Mexican  laws,  prescribing  the  administration  of  justice 
there,  with  which  these  rights  are  inconsistent. 
It  has  been  urged  however,  that  Gen.  Cass  cannot  enter- 
tain these  opinions,  which  are  so  much  at  war  with  our  con- 
stitutional rights,  because,  in  summing  up  his  views  he  says: 

■"  Briefly  then,  I  am  opposed  to  the  exercise  of  any  jurisdiction  by  Con- 
gress over  this  matter ;  and  I  am  in  favor  of  leaving  to  the  people  of  any 
territory,  which  may  hereafter  be  acquired,  the  right  to  regulate  it  for  them- 
selves, under,  tlie  general  principles  of  the  Constitution.  1.  Because  I  do 
not  see  in  the  constitution  any  grant  of  the  requisite  power  to  Congress  ; 
and  I  am  not  disposed  to  extend  a.  doubtful  precedent  beyond  its  neces- 
sity— the  establishment  of  territorial  governments  where  needed — leaving 
In  the  inhabitants  all  the  rights  compatible  with  the  relations  they  bear  to  the. 
m  xfe&eracij?'' 

The  above  clauses  are  seized  upon  by  his  friends  as  settling 


72 

the  matter  that  Gen.  Cass  will  not  give  to  the  people  of  thos& 
new  territories  a  single  unconstitutional  privilege — whereas; 
in  truth  they  only  settle  this,  that  he  will  not  give  to  them  any 
privilege  which  he  thinks  would  be  wrong  "  under  the  gene- 
ral principles  of  the  constitution." 

The  very  same  gentlemen  who  quote  the  above  as  con- 
clusive will  sneer  and  laugh  heartily  at  a  similar  assertion 
made  by  Gen.  Taylor — to  wit:  that  "  if  elected  President, 
he  will  administer  the  government  solely  according  to 
the  constitution  !  "  They  ask  a  whig,  whenever  he  repeats 
this  general  and  really  unmeaning  declaration  of  General 
Taylor — "Yes — but  what  does  Gen.  Taylor  think  is  consti- 
tutional ?  How  does  he  construe  that  instrument  ?  He 
may  think  one  thing  to  be  constitutional— and  we  may  not 
think  so— and  in  that  event  Gen.  Taylor  only  says  to  me,  that 
he  will  administer  the  government  according  to  his  own  views 
of  the  constitution,  and  not  according  to  mine." 

Let  us  apply  this  well-considered  reply  to  Gen.  Cass. 
'•'  What  do  you  consider  to  be  the  rights  of  the  inhabitants  of 
a  territory,  compatible  with  the  relations  they  bear  to  the  con- 
federacy?" Gen.  Cass  could  only  answer — that  in  "his 
lengthy  and  elaborate  letter  to  Mr.  Nicholson,  he  had  laid  j 
down  what  rights  the  inhabitants  had,  according  to  his  views 
of  the  constitution."  So  that  at  last  the-  faithful  enquirer 
after  his  true  meaning  would  turn  from  the  generalities  of  the 
summing  up  of  his  views,  to  the  mass  of  particular  views 
which  he  had  reasoned  out  in  the  body  of  the  letter.  There 
he  will  find  that  Gen.  Cass  thinks  "  under  the  general  princi- 
ples of  the  constitution"— the  inhabitants  have  u  the  right  to 
regulate  it  [slavery]  for  themselves" — have  the  right  to  per- 
mit or  "  not  permit  the  enslavement  of  any  portion  of  the 
colored  race."  There  he  lays  it  down,  as  a  physical  and 
political  truth,  that  "Beyond  the  Del  Norte  slavery  will  not 
pass"  on  account  of  the  Mexican  law  forbidding  it,  and  on 
account  of  the  colored  race  not  permitting  it  ;  and  "  besides 
[see  his  quotation  from  Buchanan]  every  facility  would  there 
be  afforded  for  the  slave  to  escape  from  his  master,'*-'  even 
granting  that  an  emigrant  could  triumph  over  the  law,  and 
prejudices,  and  power,  of  "  the  people"  there  ! 

The  simple  truth  is  that  this  celebrated  letter,  which  has 
been  thrown  into  the  political  arena,  is  like  the  apple  of  dis- 
cord in  the  midst  of  Democracy. 

The  friends  of  Gen.  Cass  at  the  North  think  it  advances  a 


proper  way  in  which  to  settle  the  "  free  territory'7  question 
an<^  claim  for  it,  the  merit  of  pointing  out  the  most  peaceable 
and  effectual  method  of  keeping  them  free.  The  contest  there, 
is  not  as  to  the  great  aim  and  end  of  the  Provisoists,  but  as 
to  the  most  effectual  way  of  accomplishing  it.  The  Barn- 
burners demand  the  interposition  of  Congress — Cass  denies 
that  power,  but  admits  the  right  of  interposition  upon  the  part 
of  the  colored  races  who  occupy  the  territories — and  pre- 
cludes all  further  argument  as  to  the  effectiveness  of  his  plan, 
by  asserting  that  Mexico,  by  law,  has  already  abolished 
slavery  in  those  regions — and  that  the  law  will  remain  in 
force  until  repealed  by  our  Congress  !  Or,  briefly  to  contrast 
their  views — the  Barnburners  claim  that  the'American  Con- 
gress can  and  should  prevent  the  admission  of  slavery  the.e  ; 
Cass  says — the  Mexican  Congress  has  already  done  it.  He 
denies  to  the  American  Congress  the  right  to  abolish  slavery 
there.  He  claims  validity  for  an  act  of  the  Mexican  Con- 
gress, doing  the  same  thing  ! 

At  the  South  the  friends  of  Gen.  Cass  are  more  divided  in 
their  construction  of  his  meaning.  The  leading  paper  in  the 
State  that  advocates  the  Cass  interest, the  "  Flag  &  Advertiser" 
of  Montgomery,  claims  that  Gen.- Cass  advocates  the  views 
of  the  late  State  Convention,  to  wit:  that  Congress  cannot 
interfere  with  slavery  there,  and  that  the  people  there  cannot 
do  so,  until  they  meet  in  convention  to  frame  a  State  Consti- 
tution; while  the  "  State  Gazette".has  wavered  between  two 
opinions,  at  one  time  seeming  to  take  the  same  view — and 
then  a^ain  acknowledging  it  had  been  rather  "obscure." 
and  taking  the  opposite,  and  in  my  opinion  only  sensible  view 
of  the  letter — that  Cass  denies  to  Congress  the  right  to  in- 
terfere, but  gives  that  privilege  to  the  inhabitants'U'hiie  under 
a  territorial  government.  The  Gazette  and  its  correspondent 
"  Giles"  are  consistent.  They  support  Gen.  Cass's  nomina- 
tion on  his  own  views — and  they  adopt  his  views.  The 
"  Flag  &  Advertiser"  is  inconsistent  with  Cass — though  con- 
sistent with  itself  and  the  State  resolutions. — It  supports  &Ve 
nomination  on  its  individual  view  and  on  Southern  ground — 
but  to  do  so  it  actually  repudiates  the  views  entertained  by 
Gen.  Cass ! 

The  "  Union"  of  Washington  has  placed  the  matter,  fairly 
before  the  public — that  sagacious  editor  has  taken  the  bull  by 
the  horns — his  paper  circulates  North  as  well  as  South.  It 
is  placed  in  its  position  as  an  organ  to  give  consistency  to  the 


73 

party.  He  -has  given  "the  key-note — the  lesser  organs  must 
all  <>!tune  up" -or  be  ruled  out  of  the  choir  as  discordant. 
The  Union  of  the  !14th  June,  in  an  article  headed  "The  two 
Parties  at  the  South  "-^-thus  gives  its  cue: 

"  The  Democrats,  'respecting  the  obligations  and  compromises  of  the 
Constitution,  have  laid  -down  in  open  day  a  platform  of  conciliation,  on 
which  they  are  willing  to  unite,  both  at  the  south  and  at  the  north,  in  the 
full  maintenance  of  the  rights  of  all  portions  of  the  Union.  The  ground 
of  that  platform  is  to  regard  slavery  as  a  domestic  anil  municipal  institu- 
tion— belonging  not  to  the  jurisdiction  of  Congress,  but  to  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  local  communities  both  of  the  Slates  and  of  the  Territories  which  are  to 
become --States.-  It  is 'for  these,  and  these  alone — /he  peojdeof  Hie  locality — 
to«deterrnine  whether  or  not  slavery  shall  exist  among  them." 

-No'-w  if  the  supporters  of  Gen.  Cass  cannot  agree  as  to 
what  views  that  gentleman  really  entertains  about  our  rights, 
even  iu  a  single  State— and  in  a  single  town,  it  must  bo 
evident  that  "  there  is  something  rotten  in  Denmark^"  and 
these  .gentlemen  should  exercise  a  little  charity  towards  others 
disagreeing  with'  them — particularly  should  those  do  so., 
who  have  themselves  within  the  last  two  months  entertained 
two  separate  and  entirely  distinct  views  as  t:>  his  opinions  ! 

Since  these  pages  were  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  printer 
the  debate  in  the  United  States  Senate  on  this  subject  has 
taken  place,  which  resulted  in  the  passage  through  that  body 
of  the  new  compromise  bill.  In  its  formation,  discussion  and 
in  the  vote,  every  Southern  Senator  placed  himself  distinctly 
upon  "the  Alabama  platform."  That  part  of  the  bill,  which 
is  considered  as  the  Southern  part,  is  based  on  the  principles 
I  have  contended  for  :  And  on  the  evening  before  this  sheet 
was  published  "the  Democratic  Association"  of  Montgomery 
unanimously  adopted  the  illh  resolution  of  the  Alabama 
platform,  which  js  the  pivot  of  the  series  I 

Discussion  is  all  that  is  necessary  to  unite  the  South  upon 
them  and  to  drive  Cass-ism  out  of  every  Southern  State! 
Should  this  discussion  cause  Gen.  Cass  to  review  his  opinions, 
and  to  coincide  with  the  principles  so  ably  maintained  in  the 
Senate,  none  will  rejoice  at  this  result  -mora  than  myself.  It 
certainly  has  already  caused  some  of  his  adherents  here  to 
prepare  a  way  for  receding  from  his  position — and  it  would 
not  be  at  all  astonishing  if  some  of  them  should,  after  all, 
claim  to  have  always  entertained  the  principles  recognized  by 
the  Senate  committee  and  by  our  State  Convention  ! 

But  as  things  now  stand,  the  question  arises — "  Whatshal 
wT«do?     Cass  is  unsound — and  Taylor  refuses' to   commit 


Iriinself,  while  Fillmore  is  a  Wihnol  Provisoist."  The  ques-' 
tion  may  be  asked,  and  I  have  reason  to  know,  is  honestly- 
asked  by  many  loyal  friends  of  the  constitution.  But  I  have 
as  good  reason  to  know  too  that  the  great  masses  at  the  South 
have  already  committed  themselves.  I  had  at  one  time 
thought  I  "understood  the  State  I  represented  at  Baltimore." 
I  have  since  seen  in  a  Gorgia  paper  ihe  sneer — -that  "'I  was 
mistaken  in, the  State  I  represented."  It  seems  that  I  was. 
I  did  think  that  so  bold  and  unequivocal  assertion  of  con- 
stitutional rights,  as  was  made  last  winter  by  the  Alabama 
democracy,  would  have  at  least  been  followed  by  considerate 
reflection  and  consultation,  after  that  right  had  been  so  une- 
quivocally denied  by  the  Baltimore  Convention.  I  did  think 
too  so  solemn  a  pledge  to  the  country  and  to  each  other,  as 
was  made  by  the  Democracy  of  Alabama,  through  its  repre- 
sentatives in  State  Convention — "under  no  political  neces- 
sity ivhatever,  to  support  for  the  offices  of  President  and  Vice 
President  of  the  United  States,  any  person  who  shall  not 
openly  and  avowedly  be  opposed  to  either  of  the  forms  of 
excluding  slavery  from  the  territories  of  the  U.  S.  mentioned 
in  the  resolutions,  as  being  alike  in  violation  of  the  constitu- 
tion, and  the  just  and  equal  rights  of  the  citizens  of  the  slave- 
holding  States" — would  not  have  been  broken  in  such  '•  in- 
decent haste" — but  that  at  least  a  call  would  have  been  m  ade 
for  re-assembling  the  Democracy  in  convention  lo  consider,' 
under  such  trying  circumstances,  what  we  should  do  in  be- 
half of  our  country  and  ourselves.  I  did  think— that  for  an 
honest  stand  upon  the  solemn  instructions  of  the  State  Con- 
vention—a refusal  to  budge  an  inch  from  the  position  which 
I  was  instructed  to  occupy,  which  I  had  the  pledge  of  the 
Convention  "  under  no  political  necessit}^  whatever"  would 
be  abandoned,  I  shou'd  not  be  hunted  down  with  "hound  and 
horn"  as  a  traitor  to  the  Democracy  of  Alabama  ;  and  that 
■  if  even  I  had  struck  an  injudicious,  or  an  indiscreet,  blow  for 
the  South,  something  might  have  been  pardoned  to  the  spirit 
of  an  honest  independence  and  a  desire  to  preserve  in  their 
purity  and  integrity  all  our  rights  ! 

In  all  this,  as  has  been  sneeringly  said,  "I  misunderstood 
the  State  I  represented  ;  "—And  the  press  and  the  people  of 
that  State  now  sing  hosannahs  to  the  Moloch,  at  whose  shrine 
they  are,  unconsciously  to  themselves,  being  prepared  to  be 
sacrificed  ;  and  on  whose  altar  they  are  determined  to  offer, 
as  the  first  victim,  him,  who  dared  to  raise   his  voice  singly 


amidst  hundreds,  for  their  rights,  and  to  advise  his  country- 
men to  stand  upon  their  defence. 

This  being  the  state  of  public  opinion,  it  is  hopeless  to 
attempt  to  stay  the  tide.  Every  man,  however,  who  accords 
with  the  sentiments  contained  in  these  pages,  can  refuse  to 
throw  himself  into  that  tide— can  "  bide  his  time,"  and  pre- 
serve his  individual  integrity,  even  though  unable  to  preserve 
that  of  his  party.  Every  such  man  will  act  strictly  as  his 
principles  demand.  He  cannot,  therefore,  vote  for  a  man 
unsound  on  a  cardinal  Democratic  principle.  He  cannot  vote 
for  a  man,  so  eminently  unsound  on  the  great  and  paramount 
question  of  Southern  rights  as  is  Gen.  Cass.  To  do  so  would 
be  to  stultify  himself,  and  aid  in  corrupting,  by  his  example 
and  influence,  that  public  opinion,  which  must  eventually  be 
our  safe-guard.  All  who  vote  for  Cass  must  in  doing  so,  tell 
the  people  that  the  views  of  this  question  entertained  by  Gen. 
Cass  are  sound  ;  and  if  that  effort. shall  be 'successful,  the  irre- 
trievable evil  will  befall  the  South — of  having  public  opinion 
here  so  corrupted,  that  hereafter  when  events  shall  make  it 
necessary  to  make  a  united  stand,  it  will  be  found  impossible 
to  undeceive  the  people — Jo  un-learn  them,  what  this  canvass 
•will  have  learned  them.  No  man  who  supports  Cass  now, 
can  hereafter  lei  I  the  people  that  his  views  were  unconstitu- 
tional, without  being  held  by  them  as  a  demagogue  and  trai- 
tor. They  will  not  be  able  to  understand  the  morality  which 
allowed' such  a  one  to  vote  for  Gen.  Cass. 

It  is  said  however,  if  such  a  course  is  pursued  to  any  ex- 
tent, Taylor  will  be  elected  !  It  is  true  this  would  be  an  evil. 
But  would  we  be  responsible  for  it  ?  Certainly  not.  No 
man  is  responsible  for  an  evil  ensuing,  by  his  doing  right. 
That  is  a  matter  which  we  may  safely  commit  to  the  Arbiter 
of  events.  He  however  is  responsible  who  does  wrong,  that 
a  right  may  ensue.  If  we  act  right,  consistently  with  our 
principles,  the  responsibility  for  the  ensuing  of  any  evil  will 
fall  on  those  who  forced  us  so  to  act — who  departed  from 
the  usual  path  of  correct  action  which  we" had  heretofore  fol- 
lowed with  them — aud  who  have  no  claim  upon  our  com- 
pany or  support,  when  they  do  so.  If  the  course  indicated 
electa  Gen.  Taylor  the  responsibility  rests  on  those  who  nom- 
inated an  unsound  Democrat  and  a  foe  to  the  South,  and  not 
on  those  who  refused  to  support  him  ! 

Again,  the  election  of  Gen.  Taylor  will  be  a  less  evil  than 
the   election   o(  Gen.   Cass.     The  Democratic  party  is   the 


.  77  . 

ruling  and  controlling  party  in  this  country".  It  is  defeated 
only  occasionally.  Nothing  can  give  it  permanent  defeat  but 
the  adoption  of  a  great  error. 

The  occasional  election  of  its  opponents  is  not  so  much  on 
their  merit  as  upon  their  de-merit.  Whenever  our  party 
becomes  united  from  the  healthful  influence  of  a  minority 
state,  it  acquires  nev/strength  and  rises  in  a  more  vigorous 
condition.  It  is  like  the  Grecian  giant,  whenever  he  was? 
thrown  to  the  earth,  he  acquired  new  vigor  from  the  contact. 

The  election  of  Gen.  Taylor  then,  by  the  refusal  of  a  large  . 
body  of  the  Democracy  to  endorse  the  error  committed  in  the 
nomination  of  Gen.  Cass,  would  not  be  decisive  of  a  single 
principle — would  be  a  mere  "  hurrah"  upon  the  part  of  the 
Whigs,  and  no  permanent  evil  to  us.  The  Bank  question  is 
settled.  The  Tariff  question,  under  the  enormous  debt  hang- 
ing ever  us  by  reason  of  the  war,  cannot  be  materially  affect- 
ed during  the  next  four  years.  The  internal  improvement 
question  cannot  be  worse  under  any  President,  than  .  under 
Cass.  The  slavery  question  cannot  be  put  in  worse  condition 
under  Taylor  than  under  Cass.  Nothing  would  be  decided 
therefor,  even  granting  that  such  a  result  would  follow  the 
course  prescribed,  but  t<hat  the  herd  of  Buena  Vista  should 
administer  the  government  for  four  years — and  that  the  ma- 
jority of  the  great  Democratic  party  shall  not  perpetrate 
gross  outrages  on  the  South  with  impunity.  The  election  of 
Cass  with  his  present  opinions,  would  be  a  permanent  evil — 
The  election  of  Taylor  a  temporary  evil.  It  is  the  duty  of 
every  good  citizen,  so  thinking,  to  be  guiltless  of  bringing 
either  upon  his  country. 

One  of  the  main  replies  to  any  such  statement  as  I  have 
here  submitted — is  an  attempt  to  prejudice  the  minds  of  the 
people,  by  the  cry  of  "  disappointed  politician  !" — "  disap- 
pointed office-seeker  !  "  How  totally  inapplicable  these  are 
to  me  is  well  known  in  Alabama.  I  have  never  sought  to 
obtain  an  office  that  I  did  not  get  it.  I  have  never  asked, 
either  of  the  people  or  the  legislature,  an  office  of  profit —I 
have  twice  resigned  posts  of  high  trust  and  honor,  when  it 
was  conceded  that  I  was  in  the  zenith  of  popularity — and 
when  I  resigned  my  seat  in  Congress,  I  publicly  announced 
that  I  did  so  to  devote  myself  exclusively  to  the  pursuit  of  my 
profession.  I  removed  to  one  of  the  strongest  Whig  counties 
in  the  State,  and  to  a  Whig  district ;  and  so  far  from  seeking 
office  since;  it  could  be  established  that  I  have  repreaied  the 


78  * 
■■ 

efforts  of  partial  and  influential  friends  to  run  me  for  offices* 
of  greater  dignity  than  I  have  heretofore  aspired  to. 

If  I  am  in  any  degree  "  a  disappointed  politician"  my  dis- 
appointment is  not  personal — but  has  relation  to  the  great 
interests  of  my  native  land. 

I  now  leave  this  matter  to  the  "  sober,  second  thought"  of 
the  people  of  Alabama.  Bold  assertion— loud  and  unrtsturned' 
abuse,  may  for  a  while  keep  the  ascendant-.  The  principle 
upon,  which  I  have  planted  myself  will  survive  both;  and 
reflection  will  bring  with  it  in  its  train  that  sense  of  justice 
which  never  long  deserts  the  breasts  of  a  free,  intelligent,  and 
virtuous  people.  To  that  sense  of  justice  I  now  make  this, 
apnea!. 

■Your  fellow-citizen, 
0  W.  L.  YANCEY. 

%'. 

I* 


% 


Montgomery,  5th  Aug.;  184$. 

To  the  People  of  the  State  of  Alabama. 

Fellow-Citizens: 

It  is  known  that  I  was  a  delegate  to  represent  the  De- 
mocracy of  the  Second  Congressional  District,  in  the  Balti-' 
more  Convention  held  in  May  last. — It  is  also  known  that  f 
have  been  assailed  for  the  eonrse  I  pursued  in  that  Conven- 
tion. Now  it  is  not  my  intention  to  go  into  all  the  details  of. 
the  history  of  that  Convention. 

I  know-  I  represented  you  according  to  your  written  in- 
structions, and  for  the  proof  of  the  assertion  I  refer  you.  to 
your  own  resolutions  passed  by  your  representatives  in  the 
State  Convention  held  on  the  14th  of  February  last,. the  most 
of  which  will  be  found  in  the  address  of  Cof.  Yancey  con- 
tained in  this  pamphlet.'  I  have  carefully  read  it,  and  as- a 
history  of  the  Baltimore  Convention  it  is  correct.  It  is  also 
correct  in  its  report  of  my  action,  and- the  feelings  which 
prompted  me  to  take  the  course  which  I  did.  1  should  be 
■harpy  to  know  that  that  course  met  with  your  approbation. 
I  have  at  least  yet  to  learn  that  you  will  condemn  him  who 
aci'd  conscientiously  in  representing  you. 

Verv  trulv  vour  obedient  serv't. 

P.  A,  Wlh 


%•• 


f 


s* 


iis- 


